Thread: Marxist Dialectical Method

Can someone please explain what the Marxist Dialectical Method is and why it's wrong? (Preferably in Sesame Street fashion)

I'm reading "The God who is there" by Schaeffer and he's talked about it a few times, but I must have missed the definition somewhere.

Thanks,

Matthew

Matthew, I don't have time right now to respond in full. Marx's dialectic is almost the direct opposite of Hegel. The Wikipedia article does a pretty good job of explaining Marxist Dialectical Materialism.

Dialectical materialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I looked at the Wikipedia article, but I'm still not quite sure how it's a "method." Does it have to do with it being a part of their presuppositional grid that they interpret "reality" with?
How is it the most important part of Marxist theory (as Schaeffer argues)?

Yes, it is a part of their presuppositional grid. It also is at the root of how the communist not only views the world, but how he attempts to change it. The Marxist Thesis/Antithesis view of life is not one that is compatible with Biblical Christianity. Truth is not defined by what it is not. It is defined by revelation. Marxists will shift their core thesis based upon what they are desiring to accomplish. We have seen how DM can be used to change a culture for at least the last fifty years in the United States. A basic example is the abortion issue. The communisitic thinking person views human life as a purely utilitarian 'tool' within the collective. This tool is either useful or not. In order to fully take advantage of the 'tools' a state must have sovereign control over them. In the United States that would never fly if posited in its bare bones fashion. Think of the Thesis/Antithesis like this, a continuum:

Individual Personal Value ----------------------------------------- Collective Tool

The Communist / Marxist knows that they will not win an up or down vote on using men as a collective tool, so they propose a radical idea less than that and the result of the ensuing debate moves the acceptable standard closer to their position. They do this over and over and each time they 'lose' the debate, but in reality the succeed in their objective because the standard of acceptability moves closer to their thesis/goal.

If you really want to understand Marxism / Dialectical Materialism and just about any other world view you should pick up a copy of Understanding the Times by David Noble.

Thanks for your input.
That helped to put some of it in perspective.
Sounds like you're not a big fan of Schaeffer.

He was basically arguing --in The God who is there-- that Christians need to go back to an antithesis method of teaching and forsake the synthesis method that's led to postmodernism. It doesn't sound like Schaeffer believes that the antithesis method defines truth by what it is not (that can lead to all sorts of fallacies); rather, he seems to argue that if something is true, which can be revelation or some proposition, then its opposite must be false: if you believe, then you'll be saved --it's opposite must then be false: if you believe, then you won't be saved, or if you don't believe, then you'll still be saved.

Anyway, thanks again for taking the time to respond. I think I got hung up on the description of the diacritical method as the Socratic method and didn't quite see how the Marxists used that in advancing their cause.

Actually, I'm a huge fan of Schaeffer. HIS definition and use of Thesis/Antithesis is spot on. Marx's is not. Marx's is based in materialism. It is not used in the sense of determining truth, but in the use of determining power, fulcrum, and the elimination of objective truth. For the Marxist both the Thesis and the Antithesis can be true. It is really what they want to accomplish that is the determiner of which is the 'truth' in the moment. At least that is about as simple as I can get it in a short post. It is an oversimplification, but it does show what can happen to logic/philosophy when an external truth is not accepted. One thing that is confusing about Marx is ultimately he was not a philosopher, but a philosophical radical deconstructionist political wonk.

Pastor Lawrence, thanks for your response and clarification.
This helps me as I formulate a biblical philosophy about education and life. In reading Schaeffer's book, I'm hoping to have more tools to combat the marxist and secularist education philosophies that I've encountered at the university.
Thanks again,
Matthew

Try this: Summit Ministries: Resources - Worldview Chart

Originally Posted by JM

Try this: Summit Ministries: Resources - Worldview Chart

YES! David Nobel, whom I referenced above, is the founder/director of Summit. They have some of the very best material out their on understanding Wordviews.



Matthew, seeing that you are trying to prep for college you really do need to pick up the book mentioned above. It is a text for the Summit Ministries Institute. If you can make it to one of their summer camps next summer it would be a great tool for you. I have taught their Understanding the Times curriculum for several years to high school juniors, seniors, and college students. It is a great resource.

Thanks again Pastor Lawrence.
I did order the book and look forward to reading through it.
Sounds like it may be similar to Schaeffer's work.
Take care,
Matthew

You will enjoy the book. Its premises are Schaefferesque. Its examination of the various worldviews is very thorough and applicable. Some find it more reachable than Schaeffer's work.

It's also worth reading "The Communist Manifesto" by Marx and Engels, which is a relatively short work, and shows how Marx believed the thesis-antithesis-synthesis of dialectical materialism worked throughout history, leading inevitably - according to Marx - to the perfect Communist society, subsequent to the Socialist society.

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

It's also worth reading "The Communist Manifesto" by Marx and Engels, which is a relatively short work, and shows how Marx believed the thesis-antithesis-synthesis of dialectical materialism worked throughout history, leading inevitably - according to Marx - to the perfect Communist society, subsequent to the Socialist society.

True. I just assumed he'd read it.