Might this be the materialists/atheists error?

Question

" ...Marx had spoken of the interim phase of the dictatorship of the proletariat as a necessity which in time would automatically become redundant. This “intermediate phase” we know all too well, and we also know how it then developed, not ushering in a perfect world, but leaving behind a trail of appalling destruction. Marx not only omitted to work out how this new world would be organized—which should, of course, have been unnecessary. His silence on this matter follows logically from his chosen approach. His error lay deeper. He forgot that man always remains man. He forgot man and he forgot man's freedom. He forgot that freedom always remains also freedom for evil. He forgot man and he forgot man's freedom. He forgot that freedom always remains also freedom for evil. He thought that once the economy had been put right, everything would automatically be put right. His real error is materialism: man, in fact, is not merely the product of economic conditions, and it is not possible

and it is not possible to redeem him purely from the outside by creating a favourable economic environment. (Spe Salvi, 21)

I don't mention Marxists but materialists.

Muffie:Hunters and gatherers were no materialists.

Answer 1

yes Marx was right

Answer 2

I'm an atheist/materialist, and I only understood about a third of that, and I think only someone familiar with Marx could comment, given how you just lunge into a criticism like everyone here is a damn Marx scholar. Either that or it's just bad sentence structure and spontaneity.

In any case, that would only seem to be a strike against Marxism, not atheism. Marxism may be atheistic (I think), but it is not the whole of atheism, and I've never been a fan of Marx or studied any of his stuff. In fact, I have the impression, probably correct, that main tenets of his theories of economics and sociology were proved incorrect, even though he might have had a few interesting or good ideas.

Answer 3

Translations by using nature won't be able to be suited. i like to envision countless translations on confusing subjects or maybe use a Greek/Hebrew dictionary. I do think of that they have completed a large job even with the indisputable fact that and that i'm grateful for what i'm provided. i've got appeared at a great number of "contradictions" that folk factor out in the Bible. whilst i glance closer, they are no longer contradictions in any respect. the two, one is giving extra info than the different, or one is telling one section and yet another a diverse section, or the words have better than one that skill, or that's poetry. Stuff like that. There are minor blunders. those are pronounced in the margins of maximum present day Bibles. quite often they are spelling alterations, or a observe is neglected. Numbers seem off. Like if a king became into 8 or 18 as an occasion. we've hundreds of early copies in the unique language. They agree o.k.. the main message comes with the aid of loud and sparkling.

Answer 4

Apparently the Pope wouldn't know social theory if it slapped him upside his pontiff. It's really appalling that the man's underlings let him blither on so ignorantly. It's kind of like watching Bush's train of thought wrecks.

Marx believed that the "intermediate phase," which none of us know at all, could only happen in advanced industrial societies that had been subject to the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" aka capitalism. Marx said that Russia was backward and their attempt at socialism would fail. They were never communists in the Marxian ideology.

After the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" had been a powerful force in national and global economics, the proletariat would eventually become tired of beign exploited and would revolt. Then there would be the "intermediate phase" knows as the "dictatorship of the proletariat" aka socialism. So instead of the bourgeoisie owning the means of production, the state would own the means of production and the proletariat would dictate how the state would administer it. This kind of thing requires an educated and active proletariat, which is not possible with a society that has not gone through the capitalist phase.

Eventually, though, both the proletariat and the ex-bourgeoisie would be tired of socialism and there would be another revolution. Instead, communism would be put in place. In Marxian communism (not what we all believe to be communism but is in reality dictatorial socialism) everyone has an equal relationship to the means of production. There is no one who owns more of it than anyone else.

The Pope would be wrong in assuming that Man's freedom to be evil precludes Marxian communism. Marxian communism has, in fact, existed for a long time, if one would trouble oneself to look into history. Hunter-Gatherer groups have happily practiced communism for 3.5 million years (if you believe in Deep Time) or for 7,000 years (if you believe Bishop Ussher). Technology, aka the forces of production, alters the relationship to the means of production. Advanced communism is a return to primitive communism, only with advanced technology. There is no need to "work out how this new world would be organized" because it's implicit in the system.

Marx really isn't that difficult to understand. His error wasn't in his assessment of humanity. His error was in his assessment of social class. There are more than two social classes, for one. For two, the working class in advanced capitalist societies are too apathetic and alienated to vote in anything approaching quantity, let alone pull together enough to stage a social revolution.

Answer 5

Marx was just as wrong as the Christians but those atheists who are reality based have long since abandoned his ideas (i.e. you probably won't find Richard Dawkins advocating communism).

His error was that he couldn't predict the future (he never actually tried to create communism, he just said what he thought would end up happening in the future and had some people who tried to actually implement it, Marx thought it would happen on its own without anyone specifically trying). That kind of thing happens all the time and had people not decided to try to force the issue with what Marx thought would happen almost no one would know of him, just as almost no one knows of the various other scientific theories that were proposed and then rejected because they were found to contradict reality.

Answer 6

Drink deeply from the well, or not at all. -Alexander Pope.

Before his death, Marx declared he was not a Marxist.

And while his economic theories were different (I'm certainly no Marxist), it still does not prove a god.

I know many extremely conservative atheists who hate Marx as much as Bush hates fiscal responsibility or facts on Iran's nuclear program.

Addendum: I am a naturalist/materialist and will remain so due to lack of any other evidence.

Answer 7

Really... so discriminating against others, treating women like dirt and torturing people until they turn to your religion is ok then? Sorry, but the Atheists win again.

You see, we may be materialists, but we're also realists. We live in the here and now, not in the future or in the past. We don't treat others like dirt and then say we can ask our god for forgiveness and get away with it. WE realize that this life is the only one we have and its therefore precious.

How about you....?

Answer 8

No.

Its just an opinion by someone.

One that is hard to read in the manner you cut-and-pasted it, and very likely in need of more context to give th full scope of the point or points being made.

The Ku Klux Klan are Christians, though, if you want a nice, warm-fuzzy connection to talk about, though.

Answer 9

No, his error actually was economical incoherence. What you forget is man's evolved nature; just like Marx.

Answer 10

No, that was Marx's error. He was an idiot with no comprehension of human psychology whatsoever.