Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
link
Line 1: Line 1:  +
[[File:Karl Marx 001.jpg|thumb|Karl Marx]]
 +
 
'''Dialectical materialism''' is the philosophical basis for [[communism]] in its modern form. It is a doctrine based on [[Karl Marx]]’s adaptation of the Hegelian dialectic to the study of history.  
 
'''Dialectical materialism''' is the philosophical basis for [[communism]] in its modern form. It is a doctrine based on [[Karl Marx]]’s adaptation of the Hegelian dialectic to the study of history.  
   Line 8: Line 10:     
To Hegel, the Spirit of man, his reason, cannot be subject to the limitations which Kant imposed upon it. He believed that Jesus taught the understanding and the fulfillment of the law not by Kantian rationalism, the justification of the law by the human mind, but by the love of God—as Paul said, “Love is the fulfilling of the law.”<ref>Rom. 13:8–10.</ref> Kant believed that when reason attempted to go beyond the finite appearance world, it became lost in insoluble contradictions; whereas Hegel found in love a union of opposites, human and divine, and the transcendence of their seeming contradiction.
 
To Hegel, the Spirit of man, his reason, cannot be subject to the limitations which Kant imposed upon it. He believed that Jesus taught the understanding and the fulfillment of the law not by Kantian rationalism, the justification of the law by the human mind, but by the love of God—as Paul said, “Love is the fulfilling of the law.”<ref>Rom. 13:8–10.</ref> Kant believed that when reason attempted to go beyond the finite appearance world, it became lost in insoluble contradictions; whereas Hegel found in love a union of opposites, human and divine, and the transcendence of their seeming contradiction.
 +
 +
[[File:Hegel portrait by Schlesinger 1831.jpg|thumb|upright|Georg Hegel, portrait by Jakob Schlesinger (1831)]]
    
== Hegel’s theory of dialectic ==
 
== Hegel’s theory of dialectic ==
   −
Hegel believed that what makes the universe intelligible is the understanding of it as an eternal cycle wherein [[Spirit]] comes to know itself as Spirit. This Spirit knowing of itself as Spirit comes through logic, though nature, and through mind-Spirit or ''Geist''.<ref>Hegel used the word ''Geist'' to describe a central principle of his philosophy. The word is the etymological origin of the word ''ghost'', but this term has lost much of its original meaning in English. Analagous words in other languages are the Greek ''pneuma'', Latin ''spiritus'', and Sanskrit ''prama''. One element of the breadth of the original meaning in English is found in the term ''Holy Ghost''. ''Geist'' can be translated as “consciousness,” mind or Spirit. Hegel’s use of this term is indicative of his departure from atheistic rationalism.</ref> He saw logic as positive pure Spirit. He saw nature as the negative creation of Spirit which bears the mark of its creator, in other words, [[Matter]]. He saw Spirit coming to know Spirit through Alpha, through Omega, through the masculine and feminine polarity of the universe; and then through ''Geist'', through self-consciousness, self-expression in history, self-discovery in art, religion and philosophy. That ''Geist'', then, becomes the individual [[Christ Self]] positioned in the midst of the Spirit-Matter being which you are, here and now.
+
Hegel believed that what makes the universe intelligible is the understanding of it as an eternal cycle wherein [[Spirit]] comes to know itself as Spirit. This Spirit knowing of itself as Spirit comes through logic, though nature, and through mind-Spirit or ''Geist''.<ref>Hegel used the word ''Geist'' to describe a central principle of his philosophy. The word is the etymological origin of the word ''ghost'', but this term has lost much of its original meaning in English. Analogous words in other languages are the Greek ''pneuma'', Latin ''spiritus'', and Sanskrit ''[[prana]]''. One element of the breadth of the original meaning in English is found in the term ''Holy Ghost''. ''Geist'' can be translated as “consciousness,” mind or Spirit. Hegel’s use of this term is indicative of his departure from atheistic rationalism.</ref> He saw logic as positive pure Spirit. He saw nature as the negative creation of Spirit which bears the mark of its creator, in other words, [[Matter]]. He saw Spirit coming to know Spirit through Alpha, through Omega, through the masculine and feminine polarity of the universe; and then through ''Geist'', through self-consciousness, self-expression in history, self-discovery in art, religion and philosophy. That ''Geist'', then, becomes the individual [[Christ Self]] positioned in the midst of the Spirit-Matter being which you are, here and now.
    
Hegel believed that thinking always proceeded according to the dialectic pattern. An initial positive thesis is immediately negated by its antithesis. Further thought produces a synthesis, which again produces an antithesis. The process continues, but not indefinitely, for it is circular. The culmination is the absolute, the return of thought to Source or to Spirit.
 
Hegel believed that thinking always proceeded according to the dialectic pattern. An initial positive thesis is immediately negated by its antithesis. Further thought produces a synthesis, which again produces an antithesis. The process continues, but not indefinitely, for it is circular. The culmination is the absolute, the return of thought to Source or to Spirit.
Line 31: Line 35:  
Now comes Marx disputing with it, arguing about it. Marx accepted Hegel’s theory of dialectic evolution with one fundamental variance. Marx denied the existence of Spirit as the initial thesis, as the essence of the antithesis, and as the unifying factor of the synthesis. Although Marx was fascinated by the Hegelian dialectic, he was determined to put it back on its “feet.” Marx translated Hegel's idealistic thesis of pure Spirit into a rationalistic thesis which he called the “productive man,” ''homo faber''.<ref>''Homo faber'': Latin for “man the maker.” The use of this term dates back to Roman times. It is often placed in juxtaposition to the term ''homo adorans'', “worshiping man.” In Judeo-Christian philosophy, the ultimate purpose of man is to worship God; in Marxism, man’s purpose is defined by what he produces. The term is somewhat parallel to the concept of the “primitive worker” (''Homo sapiens'') genetically engineered by the Nephilim to work for the “gods.”</ref>  
 
Now comes Marx disputing with it, arguing about it. Marx accepted Hegel’s theory of dialectic evolution with one fundamental variance. Marx denied the existence of Spirit as the initial thesis, as the essence of the antithesis, and as the unifying factor of the synthesis. Although Marx was fascinated by the Hegelian dialectic, he was determined to put it back on its “feet.” Marx translated Hegel's idealistic thesis of pure Spirit into a rationalistic thesis which he called the “productive man,” ''homo faber''.<ref>''Homo faber'': Latin for “man the maker.” The use of this term dates back to Roman times. It is often placed in juxtaposition to the term ''homo adorans'', “worshiping man.” In Judeo-Christian philosophy, the ultimate purpose of man is to worship God; in Marxism, man’s purpose is defined by what he produces. The term is somewhat parallel to the concept of the “primitive worker” (''Homo sapiens'') genetically engineered by the Nephilim to work for the “gods.”</ref>  
   −
=== The influence of Ludwig Feuerbach ===
+
[[File:Ludwig feuerbach.jpg|thumb|upright|Ludwig Feuerbach (1866)]]
 +
 
 +
=== Ludwig Feuerbach ===
   −
Marx was greatly influenced by Ludwig Feuerbach, who saw in Hegel’s philosophy something extremely revolutionary. Feuerbach accomplished a break with religion, a transition from idealism to materialism. To Feuerbach, man is the secret of religion. Whereas traditional doctrine maintains that God created man in his own image, “Feuerbach maintains the reverse:... man has created God in his own image.”<ref>August Thalheimer, ''Introduction to Dialectical Materialism'', part 7, “Hegel and Feuerbach.” [www.marxists.org/archive/thalheimer/works/dimat/07.htm www.marxists.org/archive/thalheimer/works/dimat/07.htm].</ref>
+
Marx was greatly influenced by Ludwig Feuerbach, who saw in Hegel’s philosophy something extremely revolutionary. Feuerbach accomplished a break with religion, a transition from idealism to materialism. To Feuerbach, man is the secret of religion. Whereas traditional doctrine maintains that God created man in his own image, “Feuerbach maintains the reverse:... man has created God in his own image.”<ref>August Thalheimer, ''Introduction to Dialectical Materialism'', part 7, “Hegel and Feuerbach.” [http://www.marxists.org/archive/thalheimer/works/dimat/07.htm www.marxists.org/archive/thalheimer/works/dimat/07.htm].</ref>
    
August Thalheimer describes Feuerbach’s views in these terms: “There is no super-sensual knowledge, as religion and philosophy maintain.... Knowledge of the world is possible only on the basis of sense experience.”<ref>Ibid.</ref> Therefore proof of anything must be existential, experimental—it must come from the five senses. This is the utter denial of the faculty of the Christ consciousness and the senses of the soul which the sons and daughters of God have. And yet this empirical method is imposed upon us today, especially in our universities and colleges. We are taught that this is the only way to think, the only way to draw conclusions in science or religion or any field.
 
August Thalheimer describes Feuerbach’s views in these terms: “There is no super-sensual knowledge, as religion and philosophy maintain.... Knowledge of the world is possible only on the basis of sense experience.”<ref>Ibid.</ref> Therefore proof of anything must be existential, experimental—it must come from the five senses. This is the utter denial of the faculty of the Christ consciousness and the senses of the soul which the sons and daughters of God have. And yet this empirical method is imposed upon us today, especially in our universities and colleges. We are taught that this is the only way to think, the only way to draw conclusions in science or religion or any field.
Line 48: Line 54:     
To Marx, violence is the price to be paid for progress. In other words, evils in society are not to be put out and destroyed. They are considered the antithesis of the thesis, a very necessary part of the process. So he proposed that we should allow the evil to grow so large as to destroy the entire society. In other words, we need the conditions of decay, corruption, destruction, violence and terror in order to evolve a better society.<ref>One of the basic lies of the fallen ones is that good and evil are in polarity. This is not true. Spirit and Matter, Father and Mother are in polarity. Good and evil are not in polarity: evil is unreal; good is real. In actuality, evil is not necessary for the expansion of good—a principle demonstrated in the golden ages that flourished on earth before the Fall of man and the entry of evil into the world.</ref>
 
To Marx, violence is the price to be paid for progress. In other words, evils in society are not to be put out and destroyed. They are considered the antithesis of the thesis, a very necessary part of the process. So he proposed that we should allow the evil to grow so large as to destroy the entire society. In other words, we need the conditions of decay, corruption, destruction, violence and terror in order to evolve a better society.<ref>One of the basic lies of the fallen ones is that good and evil are in polarity. This is not true. Spirit and Matter, Father and Mother are in polarity. Good and evil are not in polarity: evil is unreal; good is real. In actuality, evil is not necessary for the expansion of good—a principle demonstrated in the golden ages that flourished on earth before the Fall of man and the entry of evil into the world.</ref>
 +
 +
[[File:Lenin-Trotsky 1920-05-20 Sverdlov Square (original).jpg|thumb|Marx’s theory of dialectical materialism has inspired generations of revolutionaries since his time, resulting in the loss of tens of millions of lives.
 +
 +
[[Vladimir Lenin]], leader of the [[Russian Revolution]], addressing Red Army troops in Sverdlov Square, Moscow, May 5, 1920.]]
    
== Class struggle ==
 
== Class struggle ==
Line 53: Line 63:  
Marx distinguished five economic forms or modes of production: primitive communal, slave, feudal, capitalistic, and [[Socialism|socialistic]].
 
Marx distinguished five economic forms or modes of production: primitive communal, slave, feudal, capitalistic, and [[Socialism|socialistic]].
   −
Under the first, the means of production are socially owned. Under the second, the slave owner owns them. Under the third, the feudal lord partially owns them while his men have some property. Under the fourth, the capitalist owns the means of production, but not his men. He can longer dispose of his workers as he pleases, though they are compelled to work for him. Under the fifth, which has not yet come into existence, the workers themselves will own the means of production, and with the abolition of the contradictions inherent in capitalism, production will reach its fullest development. From the point of view of both production and of, each of these stages represents an advance upon its predecessor, in accordance with the dialectic principle that every new stage takes up whatever was of value in that which it has negated.  
+
Under the first, the means of production are socially owned. Under the second, the slave owner owns them. Under the third, the feudal lord partially owns them while his men have some property. Under the fourth, the capitalist owns the means of production, but not his men. He can no longer dispose of his workers as he pleases, though they are compelled to work for him. Under the fifth, which has not yet come into existence, the workers themselves will own the means of production, and with the abolition of the contradictions inherent in capitalism, production will reach its fullest development. From the point of view of both production and freedom, each of these stages represents an advance upon its predecessor, in accordance with the dialectic principle that every new stage takes up whatever was of value in that which it has negated.  
   −
Marx saw the separate stages of social progress each represented by a social class: feudalism by the nobility; capitalism by entrepreneurs, which he called the “bourgeoisie”<ref>''Bourgeoisie'' is French word originally referring to dwellers in a city, as opposed to the peasants who dwelt in rural areas. It was later used as a legal term for those who had rights of citizenship and political rights in a city. These were often merchants, craftsmen and business owners. The revolutions of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries saw the ascendance of the borugeosie over the nobility who had ruled in earlier centuries. Marx had great disdain for the bourgeoisie, and the word has come to be used a pejorative description for the middle class.</ref>; socialism by the workers, the proletariat.<ref>''Proletariat'': (French) from the Latin ''proletarius'',  “producers of offspring.” The term was used in ancient Rome to refer to poor freedmen, including artisans and small tradesmen, the lowest rank among Roman citizens, whose primary contribution to the state were their offspring (''proles''). In Marxist philosophy the term is used to refer to those who do not own capital or the means of production and who earn their living by selling their labor.</ref> Marx maintained that the victory of the new class cannot be limited by a democracy which substitutes ballots for bullets and requires respect for inalienable rights.  
+
Marx saw the separate stages of social progress each represented by a social class: feudalism by the nobility; capitalism by entrepreneurs, which he called the “bourgeoisie”<ref>''Bourgeoisie'' is a French word originally referring to dwellers in a city, as opposed to the peasants who dwelt in rural areas. It was later used as a legal term for those who had rights of citizenship and political rights in a city. These were often merchants, craftsmen and business owners. The revolutions of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries saw the ascendance of the bourgeoisie over the nobility who had ruled in earlier centuries. Marx had great disdain for the bourgeoisie, and the word has come to be used as a pejorative description for the middle class.</ref>; socialism by the workers, the proletariat.<ref>''Proletariat'': (French) from the Latin ''proletarius'',  “producers of offspring.” The term was used in ancient Rome to refer to poor freedmen, including artisans and small tradesmen, the lowest rank among Roman citizens, whose primary contribution to the state were their offspring (''proles''). In Marxist philosophy the term is used to refer to those who do not own capital or the means of production and who earn their living by selling their labor.</ref> Marx maintained that the victory of the new class cannot be limited by a [[democracy]] which substitutes ballots for bullets and requires respect for inalienable rights.  
    
In the class struggle which Marx witnessed following the Industrial Revolution, he professed extreme sympathy for the injured and the insulted laboring masses. This sympathy for the downtrodden characterizes this entire philosophy. It originates in the sympathy of the Devil for himself: “Feel sorry for me. I have gotten kicked out of heaven. God has denied me his light, his bread, his energy, his consciousness; now give me what God has failed to give me.”
 
In the class struggle which Marx witnessed following the Industrial Revolution, he professed extreme sympathy for the injured and the insulted laboring masses. This sympathy for the downtrodden characterizes this entire philosophy. It originates in the sympathy of the Devil for himself: “Feel sorry for me. I have gotten kicked out of heaven. God has denied me his light, his bread, his energy, his consciousness; now give me what God has failed to give me.”
Line 71: Line 81:  
In the absolute sense, God never brings man to a state of slavery in order to bring him to future freedom. But in the relative sense, man brings himself there by his own self-imposed laws of limitation. And just because man has brought himself to the state of slavery, this does not allow us to conclude that by dialectical materialism he will evolve out of slavery through economic determinism. It is impossible. Man evolves out of slavery through Christ, through that liberation of the soul that is a burst of consciousness, which is the elevation of that Christ in the temple of being; that is, through confessing that he is come in the flesh in this temple.  
 
In the absolute sense, God never brings man to a state of slavery in order to bring him to future freedom. But in the relative sense, man brings himself there by his own self-imposed laws of limitation. And just because man has brought himself to the state of slavery, this does not allow us to conclude that by dialectical materialism he will evolve out of slavery through economic determinism. It is impossible. Man evolves out of slavery through Christ, through that liberation of the soul that is a burst of consciousness, which is the elevation of that Christ in the temple of being; that is, through confessing that he is come in the flesh in this temple.  
   −
We can obviously see that history has followed these steps. But this has not happened according to the interpretation of Marx. This evolution has been the result of karma—the karma of ignorance of the law of the individual Christ. It was not necessary to go through these stages. These were not dependent on one another. They did not come out of this dialectic. They came out of the fact that, one by one, step-by-step, the individual was evolving a Christ consciousness, and therefore he gained a greater and greater enlightenment of the law of economics set forth by Jesus Christ and the flow of the abundant life.<ref>See lecture by Elizabeth Clare Prophet, The Economic Philosophy of Jesus Christ, October 6, 1978, available from [http://ascendedmasterlibrary.org Ascended Master Library].</ref> And we have come to the greatest principle of that abundant life in the guru-chela relationship in the free-enterprise system. That is the evolution of the Christ consciousness by the cycles of Alpha and Omega, as thesis and antithesis and synthesis of the Christ within us.
+
We can obviously see that history has followed these steps. But this has not happened according to the interpretation of Marx. This evolution has been the result of karma—the karma of ignorance of the law of the individual Christ. It was not necessary to go through these stages. These were not dependent on one another. They did not come out of this dialectic. They came out of the fact that, one by one, step-by-step, the individual was evolving a Christ consciousness, and therefore he gained a greater and greater enlightenment of the law of economics set forth by Jesus Christ and the flow of the abundant life.<ref>See lecture by Elizabeth Clare Prophet, “The Economic Philosophy of Jesus Christ,October 6, 1978, available on DVD and audio album ''[http://store.summitlighthouse.org/the-seduction-of-socialism-and-the-responsibility-of-freedom-dvdsmp3 The Seduction of Socialism and the Responsibility of Freedom]'' and in audio from [http://www.ascendedmasterlibrary.org Ascended Master Library].</ref> And we have come to the greatest principle of that abundant life in the guru-chela relationship in the free-enterprise system. That is the evolution of the Christ consciousness by the cycles of Alpha and Omega, as thesis and antithesis and synthesis of the Christ within us.
   −
Marx uses his theory as the justification that socialism is the next phase of economic determinism. It is not. Socialism is and ever has been the fallen state of man and woman. And with this logic, the fallen ones are trying to take from us is the foundation of the Golden Age economy and to return us to the most primitive form of life on earth. Socialism was never born in the 1850s. It has been around as the subtle lie within the being of the individual for millennia.
+
Marx uses his theory as the justification that socialism is the next phase of economic determinism. It is not. Socialism is and ever has been the fallen state of man and woman. And with this logic, the fallen ones are trying to take from us the foundation of the Golden Age economy and to return us to the most primitive form of life on earth. Socialism was never born in the 1850s. It has been around as the subtle lie within the being of the individual for millennia.
    
== The problem of materialism ==
 
== The problem of materialism ==
Line 97: Line 107:  
The First Cause, which is God’s karma (the ''ca''use of the ''r''ay in ''ma''nifestation) is the descent of the soul with free will. Under that First Cause, obedient to that will, imbued with that wisdom, filled with that Holy-Spirit love, we can manifest God-mastery. Disobedient to it, entering the ignore-ance of the Law and the anti-love synthesis, we set up secondary causes.
 
The First Cause, which is God’s karma (the ''ca''use of the ''r''ay in ''ma''nifestation) is the descent of the soul with free will. Under that First Cause, obedient to that will, imbued with that wisdom, filled with that Holy-Spirit love, we can manifest God-mastery. Disobedient to it, entering the ignore-ance of the Law and the anti-love synthesis, we set up secondary causes.
   −
Secondary causes are temporarily real. They are real because we sustain them by free will, but they are unreal in the absolute sense and therefore we do not give them power, wisdom or love. We do not feed them energy. We cut them from the vine of life and we put them into the fiery furnace where the tares belong.  
+
Secondary causes are temporarily real. They are real because we sustain them by free will, but they are unreal in the absolute sense and therefore we do not give them [[Power, wisdom and love|power, wisdom or love]]. We do not feed them energy. We cut them from the vine of life and we put them into the fiery furnace where the tares belong.  
    
What is true of the individual is true of civilization. There is First Cause: [[Golden age|golden-age civilizations]], golden-age God-government and economy. There are secondary cause-effect sequences: the karma of society and civilization that is not founded upon the Rock of Christ.
 
What is true of the individual is true of civilization. There is First Cause: [[Golden age|golden-age civilizations]], golden-age God-government and economy. There are secondary cause-effect sequences: the karma of society and civilization that is not founded upon the Rock of Christ.
   −
The law of karma that we have set in motion has no inevitable conclusion, but only the perpetual process of resolution by the law of love and its transmutative sacred fire. The agents of this transmutation are always the Word made flesh and the fiery baptism of the Holy Ghost. This process continues until the Absolute is attained, that is, until the soul’s liberation from all cause-effect sequences—dialectic, didactic or materialistic—through integration with the Law of the One or the [[I AM THAT I AM]].
+
The law of karma that we have set in motion has no inevitable conclusion, but only the perpetual process of resolution by the law of love and its transmutative sacred fire. The agents of this transmutation are always the Word made flesh and the fiery baptism of the Holy Ghost. This process continues until the Absolute is attained, that is, until the soul’s liberation from all cause-effect sequences—dialectic, didactic or materialistic—through integration with the [[Law of the One]] or the [[I AM THAT I AM]].
    
== Saint Germain’s commentary on Marxist philosophy ==
 
== Saint Germain’s commentary on Marxist philosophy ==
Line 111: Line 121:  
<blockquote>Thus, in the Hegelian dialectic all progress is brought about through the inevitable conflict of opposing forces—a principle Karl Marx turned upside down in his “dialectical materialism,” wherein he replaced Hegel’s idealism with economic materialism. Whereas Hegel supported the value of the state and saw in the dialectical process the unfoldment of spiritual principle, Marx branded the state a mechanism of exploitation and claimed that all progress arises from conflicts involving the economic means of production.</blockquote>
 
<blockquote>Thus, in the Hegelian dialectic all progress is brought about through the inevitable conflict of opposing forces—a principle Karl Marx turned upside down in his “dialectical materialism,” wherein he replaced Hegel’s idealism with economic materialism. Whereas Hegel supported the value of the state and saw in the dialectical process the unfoldment of spiritual principle, Marx branded the state a mechanism of exploitation and claimed that all progress arises from conflicts involving the economic means of production.</blockquote>
   −
<blockquote>You who understand the premise of the ascended masters’ teachings to be the Law of the One do not always take into account this law of relativity governing relative good and evil, perceived by psychologists, scientists and the worldly philosophers. Moreover, in the world of maya, where good and evil are always “relatively” in opposition, we must also reckon with the negative misqualification of the Absolutes of Power, Wisdom and Love upon which we have been discoursing. Therefore we would touch upon both the human and the divine equations.</blockquote>
+
<blockquote>You who understand the premise of the ascended masters’ teachings to be the Law of the One do not always take into account this law of relativity governing relative good and evil, perceived by psychologists, scientists and the worldly philosophers. Moreover, in the world of [[maya]], where good and evil are always “relatively” in opposition, we must also reckon with the negative misqualification of the Absolutes of Power, Wisdom and Love upon which we have been discoursing. Therefore we would touch upon both the human and the divine equations.</blockquote>
    
<blockquote>The Law of the One, based on the unity of Being, also functions within the framework of human reason and human events and when it comes full circle in the individual’s experience, supports Truth and exposes error.</blockquote>
 
<blockquote>The Law of the One, based on the unity of Being, also functions within the framework of human reason and human events and when it comes full circle in the individual’s experience, supports Truth and exposes error.</blockquote>
Line 119: Line 129:  
<blockquote>Not so in the divine equation. Here the true Divine Polarity of Alpha and Omega, the plus/minus of the Godhead, and of each member of the Trinity are the Masculine/Feminine counterparts of Being. These are complementary, not opposing, always fulfilling the Law of the One as the Divine Whole. But in the human condition, just as there is a positive pole, so there is a negative pole to a given situation. These are opposing forces, rivalrous in nature and mutually destructive. For example, if the thesis be human love, its antithesis will be some form of love’s polar opposite—human hatred, fear, suspicion or even mild dislike. Their synthesis will be a watered-down version of both with no commitment either to one or the other.</blockquote>
 
<blockquote>Not so in the divine equation. Here the true Divine Polarity of Alpha and Omega, the plus/minus of the Godhead, and of each member of the Trinity are the Masculine/Feminine counterparts of Being. These are complementary, not opposing, always fulfilling the Law of the One as the Divine Whole. But in the human condition, just as there is a positive pole, so there is a negative pole to a given situation. These are opposing forces, rivalrous in nature and mutually destructive. For example, if the thesis be human love, its antithesis will be some form of love’s polar opposite—human hatred, fear, suspicion or even mild dislike. Their synthesis will be a watered-down version of both with no commitment either to one or the other.</blockquote>
   −
<blockquote>This is the lukewarm state of mediocrity that Jesus spurned when he said, ‘Because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. And this is precisely why the economic evolution of mankind according to Marx and Lenin can never lead to the divine conclusion: self-transcendence according to the law of love, the Law of the One, which self-contains the true Trinity—power, wisdom and love—as the triad of every man and woman’s being.<ref>{{SGA}}, pp. 310–12.</ref></blockquote>
+
<blockquote>This is the lukewarm state of mediocrity that Jesus spurned when he said, “Because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. And this is precisely why the economic evolution of mankind according to Marx and Lenin can never lead to the divine conclusion: self-transcendence according to the law of love, the Law of the One, which self-contains the true Trinity—power, wisdom and love—as the triad of every man and woman’s being.<ref>{{SGA}}, pp. 310–12.</ref></blockquote>
    
== See also ==
 
== See also ==
    
[[Socialism]]
 
[[Socialism]]
 +
 +
[[Communism]]
    
[[Karl Marx]]
 
[[Karl Marx]]
Line 129: Line 141:  
== For more information ==
 
== For more information ==
   −
Lectures by Elizabeth Clare Prophet, “The Philosophy of Antichrist,” October 8, 1978; “The Psychology of Socialism,” October 9, 1978.
+
Lectures by Elizabeth Clare Prophet, “The Philosophy of Antichrist,” October 8, 1978; “The Psychology of Socialism: The Religion of Hatred, the Cult of Death,” October 9, 1978; and “The Psychology of Socialism: The Death Instinct” October 9, 1978. Available on DVD and audio album ''[http://store.summitlighthouse.org/the-seduction-of-socialism-and-the-responsibility-of-freedom-dvdsmp3 The Seduction of Socialism and the Responsibility of Freedom]'' and in audio from [http://www.ascendedmasterlibrary.org Ascended Master Library].
    
== Sources ==
 
== Sources ==
Line 135: Line 147:  
Elizabeth Clare Prophet, “The Philosophy of Antichrist,” October 8, 1978.
 
Elizabeth Clare Prophet, “The Philosophy of Antichrist,” October 8, 1978.
   −
{{POB}}, pp.
+
{{POB}}, pp. 101–03.
 +
 
 +
<references />

Navigation menu