Refuting Marxism.

Vic Biorseth, Friday, March 27, 2009
http://www.Thinking-Catholic-Strategic-Center.com

Here we present our argument refuting Marxism, Socialism and Communism, as defined by Marx and Engles, as pseudo-science, or Scientism, devoid of all scientific evidences or proofs.

1: The Scientific Method.

Any new hypothesis elevated to the level of scientific theory must first be supported by an overwhelming preponderance of multiple independently sourced scientific evidences supporting it and none refuting it. These evidences may be in the form of solid empirical evidences, in easily duplicable (and already duplicated) experiments, or both, with supporting consensus among all recognized experts in the field, and all results published. This process normally takes a great deal of time.

After the original proponent first satisfies himself through meticulous and objective gathering of evidences and successful experiments, his theory is then made public. New hypotheses are always expected to be openly published for peer review with elaborate explanations of duplicable observation and experiment, so that others may go through the same or similar processes themselves in a completely independent manner.

A period of objective independent criticism follows, during which the independent critics proactively seek to confirm or refute the hypothesis in the laboratory and the field. Upon complete or overwhelming independent confirmation the hypothesis may be elevated to the exalted level of a scientific theory. Upon the lack of independent confirmation, the hypothesis will be refuted.

2: Our Argument.

We submit that Marxist hypotheses regarding such topics as dialectic materialism, historical materialism, evolution of society, class struggle and its relationship to war, the inevitability of Communism, the nature of Communism and even the nature of Socialism and more – virtually all of the theoretical socio-economic output of Marx and Engles have never been properly subjected to the Scientific Method described above.

What these hypotheses describe:

• Materialism; the belief in the existence of nothing but matter hinted at by Darwinism.
• Historical materialism; the belief that human history, like the evolution of the physical universe and the evolution of life forms, is the record of the evolution of human society prompted primarily by class struggle.
• The hypothesis that all past wars were motivated at their root by class struggle.
• The hypothesis that all of human society contains the inequalities of class that make further violent revolution inevitable until social perfection is achieved and social history will stop.
• The hypothesis that the ultimate end of this social evolution and of history will be a perfect and absolutely unhindered Democratic society without government, called Communism, which will manifest itself as a perfect worker’s paradise.
• The hypothesis that an unpleasant yet necessary intermediary phase of social evolution is what all Marxist revolutionaries should be striving for is the state of Socialism, or the dictatorship of the proletariat, which will forcefully confiscate all means of production and refine society, means and commodities in preparation for the ideal future condition of Communism.

Materialism. If anyone anywhere in all of recorded history has ever observed or produced any empirical material evidence that matter is all there is and all there ever was, then lay that evidence out on the public table before us so that we all may observe it in the same light. The exact same empirical evidence must be available to every one us, so that we may each independently make our own observations and experiments and do our own critiques by objectively putting this theory to the test.

If no such empirical evidence has ever been observed or produced by more than one observer in all of recorded history, and cannot even be made to be observable by anyone else, then the whole notion of materialism must be abandoned as a scientific theory in the interest of preserving the integrity of science itself.

Historical materialism. If anyone anywhere in all of recorded history has ever observed a continuous string of historical events that prove all wars were caused by class struggle – labor versus employer – and resulted in social evolutionary steps toward Communism, then lay that historical evidence out on the public table before us so that we all may observe it in the same light. The exact same sources of the history, and other sources, must be available to every one us; then we may each independently make our own observations and experiments and do our own critiques by objectively putting this theory to the test.

If no such certain history has ever been deciphered out of all of social history by more than one objective observer in all of recorded history, and cannot even be made to be observable by anyone else, then the whole notion of historical materialism must be abandoned as a scientific theory in the interest of preserving the integrity of science itself.

We have now had Marxist theory with us for some 140 years or more; ample time for direct scientific observation.

Communism. If anyone anywhere in all of recorded history has ever observed a social state of Communism exactly as Marx described it, then lay the evidence of it out on the public table before us so that we all may observe it in the same light. The exact same evidence must be available to every one of us; then we may each independently make our own observations and experiments and do our own critiques by objectively putting this theory to the test.

If no such evidence has ever been recorded out of all of social history by more than one objective observer, in all of recorded history, and cannot even be shown or made observable by anyone else, then the whole notion of Communism must be abandoned as a scientific theory in the interest of preserving the integrity of science itself.

Socialism. If anyone anywhere in all of recorded history has ever observed a social state of Socialism exactly as Marx described it, then lay the evidence of it out on the public table before us so that we all may observe it in the same light. The exact same evidence must be available to every one of us; then we may each independently make our own observations and experiments and do our own critiques by objectively putting this theory to the test.

If no such evidence has ever been recorded out of all of social history by more than one objective observer, in all of recorded history, and cannot even be shown or made observable by anyone else, then the whole notion of Socialism must be abandoned as a scientific theory in the interest of preserving the integrity of science itself.

I submit that every single historical case of any nation calling itself Communist or Socialist throughout history was and/or is in fact a dictatorship, some of which were dressed up in deceptive clothing and hidden behind purposeful disinformation.

Marxism is, in truth, Idealized Jealousy.

Marxism is not a reaction against the failure of the Capitalism to fairly organize economic output. It is, rather, a reaction against the comparative success among people produced by simple free market commerce. It is a protest against the seeming unfairness of someone being poorer than someone else, or of someone being richer than someone else. The youthful or naïve idealist toys with the promises of Communism because these promises offer some semblance of perfection in the worldly order. That is to say, the dream of Communism offers equality of success.

Ethos – a common morality held by a culture – is what drives or directs the behavior of a people and forms their foundational basis for their civil law. Western Culture’s common morality stems from Natural Law which comes from Divine Revelation, and it includes those human rights held by Western society to be inalienable, because they originate not with man, but with God.

But Marxism is purely materialistic. There are no inalienable rights. If man has any rights at all they are granted by The Party under Socialism, or by unanimous consensus under Communism. Marxism directly attacks Western religion and its morality. Once the original cultural common sense of right and wrong has been either eliminated in a culture, or called into question in someone’s mind, the ethic of achieving economic equality, even through force, begins to idealistically drive the behavior of all who adopt this new Marxist way of thinking.

Economic equality becomes a super-worthy end. It becomes easier to say that the ends justify the means. What previously would have been immoral becomes ethical. Economic immorality – stealing private property – becomes justified, because you cannot make an omelet without breaking some eggs. Ultimately, when all vestiges of the previous morality are gone, the ideologue, in the interest of furthering the Marxist ethic of economic equality, may even be moved by his utopian idealism to say to someone shut up and get on the cattle car. Or worse. History has proved it, again and again.

Marxism is a Fad of the Elite, pure and simple. Nothing more and nothing less. Since birth, it simply became extremely popular among the intelligentsia, the upper class and the pseudo-sophisticated. There is nothing scientific about it, since no real science has ever been applied to it. It has morphed into a belief system, a quasi-religion, based on faith alone. It is now taught almost as dogma in schools all over the world. The damage it has done to truth is incalculable. Taken axiomatically by everyone, it forms the foundation for many other theories, all of which may now be seen to stand on quicksand.

Scientism. I have spoken elsewhere on this site about Scientism and its past and current champions. Some example pages are The Enlightenment and Scientism, Scientism and Silly Assed Consensus, Richard Dawkins, and his adoring retinue of idiotic bobble-headed-dolls, just to name a few.

We have reached a point where real scientists in various related and unrelated disciplines base new hypothesis at least partially on the educationally inculcated belief that Marxism is true. A scientific theory, we have all learned, is taken to be axiomatic; a given. We don’t bother to put them to the test. Science that has gone before enables us to stand on the shoulders of those who have already proved the established scientific theories. If the modern scientist has to test everything that has gone before, no real scientific progress can be made. That is why science relies heavily on established scientific theory, which is assumed to be supported by an overwhelming preponderance of evidence.

But Marx’s universally embraced theory is nothing more than an unsubstantiated, purely subjective set of personal hypotheses, and nothing more. Popularity and consensus has nothing to do with it. A scientific theory may either be scientifically substantiated, or it may not. This theory cannot stand the test of science.

Yet today we see that an overwhelming majority among TTRSTF dogmatically embracing Marxism and refusing to even consider the slightest possibility of its falsification. And that’s where it stands.

Never have any separate and independent scientists ever observed and analyzed the same Marxist phenomena and arrived at the same conclusions regarding them. There is no independent substantive evidence of the existence of a Communism or a Socialism as Marx defined them. Just a whole lot of pure conjecture and consensus.

And yet, this purely faith-based belief system, or religion, of Marxism feels solidly secure in its scientistic consensus, and in public acceptance of its tenets. All Marxists will immediately band together against anyone who questions the religion of Marxism, in unanimous support of militant and aggressive counter attacks. Question the core, central dogmas of Marxism and the unanimous response from all Marxists will be SNRTACBT that Karl Marx’s theory is in any way in question. Or, STNSEACPB that Marxism isn’t a scientific fact.

Consensus trumps objective reality.

Beam me up, Scotty; there is no science down here.

Reference Material

Return to Arguments Pro and Con page

Return to Web Site Log (Blog) page

Return to HOME PAGE

Build/Host/Maintain Your Own Personal Website using SBI! (Advertisement)

Date: Tue Dec 08 02:07:08 2009
From: Roaring Fish
Email:
Location:
Comment:

"We submit that Marxist hypotheses regarding such topics as dialectic materialism, historical materialism, evolution of society, class struggle and its relationship to war, the inevitability of Communism, the nature of Communism and even the nature of Socialism and more – virtually all of the theoretical socio-economic output of Marx and Engles have never been properly subjected to the Scientific Method described above."

Your whole premise is flawed: Marxism is a political philosophy, not a hypothesis. As it is not a hypothesis your argument that it has not been proven scientifically is irrelevant. In fact, one of the more intelligent criticisms of Marxism is that it is basically a negative ideology, amounting to little more than a criticism of capitalism.

I think you are confusing Marxism with Marxist economics, which is a theory though still not a hypothesis, and has been proven to work in practice. Marx's Labour Theory of Value is now fundamental to economic forecasting.

Now to the factual errors.

1) "Materialism; the belief in the existence of nothing but matter hinted at by Darwinism."

This is not even close to being what materialism means. Materialism is the argument that society is shaped by it's ability to produce material goods, in contrast to idealism that says society is shaped by ideas. From The German Ideology:

'The nature of individuals thus depends on the material conditions determining their production.'

2)"Historical materialism; the belief that human history, like the evolution of the physical universe and the evolution of life forms, is the record of the evolution of human society prompted primarily by class struggle."

This too is inaccurate. Historical Materialism is the argument that the development of a society's political and social structures can be traced through it's ability to produce material goods. From The German Ideology:

'Empirical observation must in each separate instance bring out empirically, and without any mystification and speculation, the connection of the social and political structure with production. The social structure and the State are continually evolving out of the life-process of definite individuals, but of individuals, not as they may appear in their own or other people’s imagination, but as they really are; i.e. as they operate, produce materially, and hence as they work under definite material limits, presuppositions and conditions independent of their will.'

3)"The hypothesis that all past wars were motivated at their root by class struggle."

Marx, quite simply, never said such a thing. In fact, he was very careful not to say anything like that, and described historical materialism as nothing more than a guideline to historic research. From 'A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy':

"I use 'historical materialism' to designate the view of the course of history, which seeks the ultimate causes and the great moving power of all important historic events in the economic development of society, in the changes in the modes of production and exchange, with the consequent division of society into distinct classes and the struggles of these classes."

4)"The hypothesis that an unpleasant yet necessary intermediary phase of social evolution is what all Marxist revolutionaries should be striving for is the state of Socialism, or the dictatorship of the proletariat, which will forcefully confiscate all means of production and refine society, means and commodities in preparation for the ideal future condition of Communism."

That is Leninism, not Marxism. Quite different.

Finally...

"Catholicism. If anyone anywhere in all of recorded history has ever observed or produced any empirical material evidence of God, then lay that evidence out on the public table before us so that we all may observe it in the same light. The exact same empirical evidence must be available to every one us, so that we may each independently make our own observations and experiments and do our own critiques by objectively putting this theory to the test."

Apply your standards equally. Either Marxism does not need scientific proof, or you have to abandon your Catholic beliefs. Your choice.

Have a great day.

Date: Thu Dec 12 18:18:26 2009
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Roaring Fish:

My apologies for being tardy; my time is limited these days to little snippets before going to work, and evening time as available. And, we have had family issues, a sick pet, a holy day of obligation and social interruptions. However, it is always good to get back to having time for my hobby here.

You say that “Marxism is a political philosophy, not a hypothesis”, to which I say, balderdash. Marxism represents no quest for truth or for wisdom, in the oldest sense of the word. In the beginning, philosophy was the study of things, and the causes of things. The ascent of the Heresy of Modernism split philosophy in two, with the study of things falling largely into the realm of material science, and the study of causes of things falling largely into the realm of theological science. If by philosophy you mean a broad area of study, then we have three major ones: metaphysical philosophy, moral philosophy and natural philosophy. Since Marx denied God and spirituality and opposed religion, and since he observed no moral standard beyond the ends justify the means, the only thing left is natural philosophy. Another term for natural philosophy is material science, or, materialism.

Next, you equate Marxist economics to a proven scientific theory, to which I say, bull feathers. The only way to describe that statement is as a flagrant lie. All you have is the so-called “well established theory” and the “well known facts” and the “broad general consensus” of a whole world full of TTRSTF who behave exactly like the little bobble-headed dolls you used to see in the back windows of cars, with their little heads all bobbling in unison. Jiggle the table a little and all the heads bobble right on queue. I don’t particularly give a damn about academic or scientific or scholarly consensus.

Show me the proof.

I don’t care to get into the academic weeds of Marxian historical-materialism with you, and I don’t care to parse and decipher pedantic and nuanced meanings of terms you have so carefully studied and learned to love all of your life. The important thing is that Lenin was a self avowed Marxist, just like Hitler, and just like Obama. You may call it Leninism is you wish. Elsewhere in this site I have called it Obamunism. I don’t care which Marxist you love the most and I don’t care how carefully you discern the differences between them and their rantings; it’s all Marxism to me. It all started from the same ongoing pseudo-sophisticate fad.

Finally, unlike Marxism, Catholicism does not present itself as a material science and is therefore not subject to the rules of material science. You may not study the ephemeral via empirical means. You may not apply empiricism to God. God may not be studied; at least not by the scientific method. His Revelation is available; men either accept it, or they do not, by their own free will.

Dose it not strike you as the least bit odd that, every time solid empirical evidence for any of the existing empirical science Giant Frauds is called for that the response is either an ad hominem attack on the person, or some completely unrelated other theory is questioned?

Well, when that’s all you’ve got, I guess you have to go with it.

Regards,

Vic

Date: Fri Dec 11 05:30:17 2009
From: Roaring Fish
Email:
Location:
Comment:

'You say that “Marxism is a political philosophy, not a hypothesis”, to which I say, balderdash.'

You say that, but don't support it, while reference works in their hundreds contradict you.

'Marxism represents no quest for truth or for wisdom, in the oldest sense of the word. '

Marxism is a quest to explain history and culture in terms of materialism. The big clue is in the names "historical materialism" and "cultural materialism".

'Another term for natural philosophy is material science, or, materialism.'

This is a great example of how woolly and ill-defined your arguments are.

natural philosophy n. The study of nature and the physical universe before the advent of modern science.

mə-tîr'ē-ə-lĭz'əm) n. Philosophy. The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.

See - they are not the same thing at all.

Date: Sat Dec 12 05:09:13 2009
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Roaring Fish:

So, Marxism is a political philosophy, not a hypothesis, therefore not subject to the scientific method, and there never has been any real-world experience of the Marxist political philosophy in all of world history. The Evil Empire of the Soviet Union had nothing whatsoever to do with Marxism. Mao’s march across China had nothing whatsoever to do with Marxism. Ho Chi Minh was not a Marxist. What Cuban soldiers were fighting to establish and expand in Africa, Central and South America had nothing whatsoever to do with Karl Marx or his political philosophy. I see, yes, I see. All of that was something else.

I wonder what it all was?

Meanwhile, Marxian economic theory, while empirically testable, made the leap from hypothesis directly to theory by route of broad general consensus.

Well well. I’ve said all this to you before, in the Definition of Marxism page dialogue, but I’ll say it again here.

You keep proving my point that all Marxism has to back it up is a lot of elitist head-bobby consensus, and nothing else. There has been no empiricism applied here, ever. Nothing has ever been peer reviewed, for there has been nothing to peer review. No Marxian socio-economic progression, whether through natural “evolution” or even through forced bloody revolution, from Capitalism through Socialism to Communism has ever even been observed by anyone. It’s a joke. Oops; I’m sorry; it’s (ahem) a political philosophy, and not a political system, and therefore exempt from empiricism, testing, proofs and so forth. Except for the economics part of it, and this leapt from hypothesis to theory by the exclusive means of scientific consensus.

How do we know these things? Teacher says so, and this text book right here says so, and Marx got himself a Ph.D., and you know it’s all true, and it’s all wonderful, and some day it will make the world a perfect place. Well, maybe after all those pesky opponents are properly put in their places.

Right.

Whatever common sense God gave you has been educated out of you, and you are clearly incapable of doing any critical thinking on your own. You have been made into a typical group thinker.

You’ve missed the whole point of my counter-argument here. I’m not putting forth an argument that needs to be proved; I am challenging one that has never been proved. It’s quite clear; I shouldn’t have to re-explain it; but I do recognize the fact that devout disciples of Marx are operating under a significant intellectual handicap, and are incapable of independent thought.

If you have any supporting proof of Marxism, other than all of the knee-jerk, immediate, idiotic head-bobbing consensus among all of TTRSTF, then let’s see it. Lay it on the table. It’s put up or shut up time.

Regards,

Vic

Date: Sun Dec 13 06:23:33 2009
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

To all, regarding Roaring Fish:

The door is closed to further comments from Roaring Fish. Her submissions have degenerated into repetitive, nonsensical, unimportant little “points” attacking descriptions of Marxism, but no supporting evidences for Marxism, proving the purpose and whole point of this page. There is nothing to be expected from this quarter other than class-envy, open jealousy, the blatant, self-centered “morality” born of the thoroughly secularized and atheistic mindset.

Roaring Fish has no sense of any larger sense of right versus wrong, and is therefore randomly oriented in her society and in the larger world, a member of no group, other than those others who cannot tell right from wrong, or who reject even the notion of the existence of any social moral norms. Add an educationally inculcated sense of social justice, class envy, jealousy of other life-styles and the notion of Marxist redistributionism, and you have the perfect mindless little disciple of Marx.

The unfortunate thing is that, in actual practice, we know through the histories of Marxist states that even redistributionism is false. Wealth is collected, but it is never fairly redistributed. The heaviest skimming is at the top, of course, and each level of bureaucracy gets some, leaving the smallest amount for the pay of the petty bureaucrats and government employees. The people get the scraps and the leftover crumbs. No one living in any hut winds up with the confiscated Rolls Royce. And no one living an average life in Indonesia will ever wind up living anything like we do in America through any success of world Marxism, achieved through the UN or any other vehicle.

The result of Marxism, wherever it has been applied in the world, is a rigid class structure of two rigid classes: those who are herded, meaning the common citizens, and those doing the herding, meaning the government workers.

Whenever I see any actual evidence supporting Marx’s theories from this quarter or from anywhere else I will publish it.

Regards,

Vic

Date: Wed Jul 27 21:59:35 2011
From: Amy
Email: amos_20092000@yahoo.com
Location: Lafayette IN U.S.A.
Comment:

You are a genius. I agree with every word.

Date: Thu Jul 28 05:52:38 2011
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Thank you; yes, I know; I know. Sometimes it’s difficult to even stand under the weight of all this knowledge, which partially explains why so many believe that I cannot think on my feet. I just need to sit a lot, and sometimes I just need to lay by big head down.

But, you know, even in my stupid, pre-genius days, I always knew that Marxism was a false religion.

Regards,

Vic

Please note the language and tone already established in this Website. This is not the place to stack up vulgar one-liners and crude rejoinders. While you may support, oppose or introduce any position or argument, your comments must meet our standards of logical rigor and of civil discourse. We will not participate in trading insults, and we will not tolerate participants trading insults with each other. Participants should not be thin-skinned or over sensitive to criticism, but should be prepared to defend their arguments when challenged. If you don’t really have a coherent argument or counter-argument of your own, sit down and don’t embarrass yourself. If you have something serious to contribute to the conversation, please keep it civil. We apologize to religious conservative thinkers for the need to even say these things.