An interesting lecture entitled "Dialectical Materialism". The dogma and theory of Marxists are explained and debunked. The importance? We see Marxist theory used by both major political parties. Understanding the doctrine better will better help us understand the lies that the Establishment feeds us through mainstream media.

http://mises.org/media/5147

now the media is the opiate of the masses!

The media completely full of conjecture, propaganda and pandemonium, creating the constant political war within the masses, in order to keep confusion and disorder amongst voters. Creating an income ratio through backroom deals and misinformation. Since turning to the internet many misrepresentations of information of psychological implanting and projection of thoughts onto the opinions of other. Just the facts please and shut the flip up.

Would you care to offer some examples of the lies the establishment feeds us and how you think they relate to the topic?

The dialectics and class theory of Marxists are used regularly to create conflict among society. It is common for MSMers to use Marxist ideology of class to fuel conflict and aggrandize themselves as "arbiters of true knowledge".

There's definitely some truth to that!

Marxism, the 'classless' society ...

Let's see here: "From each according to his ability; to each according to his needs."

With that construct, the entire premise of Marxism and Communist Utopianism disintegrates because the major premise is defective.

'From each' and 'To each' automatically establishes a TWO-TIERED class-structure:

The ABLE ... and ... the NEEDY. Or, if you prefer: Master ... and Slave.

The entire premise upon which this philosophical construct is based is FATALLY FLAWED.

True dat! Did you know that Marx conflated "class" with "caste"? This is only one of the many key flaws (his labor theory of value is another load of crap that comes to mind)in Marx's understanding that make his "philosophy" utterly unworkable.

Marx was only one part of the equation - Trotsky was the real 'enforcer' of doctrine. I sometimes wonder what kind of world we'd have if Marx had met Mohammad ... oh - wait - we already know that, don't we ... ?

True dat. IMHO, even Trotsky wouldn't have gotten as far as he did without Hegel's pseudo-intellectual backing of Marxist theory. JMHO.

A little off topic.

Mexico has a caste system.

They consider folks who look more (paler), Spanish at a higher class than the (darker) Mexican Indian.

There are about 4 levels of class, I believe.

This is not an example.
An assumption was presented and no specifics to back it up. The philosophies discussed on the web site presented in the OP are quite extensive, having many elements individually. The web site information attempts to prove that Marx utilized components of some of the major philosophies of the day while creating his own manefesto. According to the 'on-line' (speaker) Marx did not provide a thorough dialogue in support of his philosophy. The speaker illustrated the areas that were unsupported by inserting the more rigousuly defined areas of the philosophy which best fit the opening.

So from the 'on-line' speaker information, the idea in this post emerged as:



Any philosophy, theory, or opinion, requires explanation to support it, including examples and reasoning as explanatin of how those examples qualify as support for the idea.

Otherwise, the philosophy, theory, or opinion, may be subject to the same kind of treatment, the 'on-line' speaker gave to the philosophy of Marx.

So does anyone have a specific example with thorough reasoning to support the idea in the OP? It would make for better discussion.

Most popular ideologies / philosophical positions are severely flawed by poor reasoning. When I was a kid, I thought adults were completely insane. I thought the existence of 'followers' of a particular ideology required that a body of adults sat down and examine the ideology for being evidence based, being somewhat logical and self consistent...for making sense.

Ideologies become more or less popular based on other factors, like emotional appeal, the existence of charismatic 'preachers', ways in which the implications of that ideology serve the blatant self interest of the audience.

Its seems to be the nature of language, truth, and the human mind that any effort to construct a system of beliefs will either be fatally flawed, or of no interest to most people (or both).

With Marxism we can point our fingers at one particular author and his writing and see how wrong it is. Capitalism, on the other, seems a bit more slippery to me; but if we take any one pro-capitalist author who tries to make a case for the intrinsic 'goodness' of 'capitalism', I suspect we will also find some flawed reasoning and overstatement of conclusions.

There are many dogmatic capitalists, but the most accurate ones follow scientific reasoning (see "Human Action" by Von Mises in the modern epoch and "Wealth Of Nations" by Smith in the classical epoch, for example). Thus far, all competing economics systems, such as Marxism, have been built on nothing but irrational beliefs and a rejection of empiricism.