Dialectical materialism - Revision history

PeterDuffy: Marked this version for translation

2026-02-08T02:21:58Z

Marked this version for translation

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:21, 8 February 2026
Line 3:		Line 3:

	<translate>		<translate>
			<!--T:76-->
	{{Economics}}		{{Economics}}

PeterDuffy at 02:21, 8 February 2026

2026-02-08T02:21:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:21, 8 February 2026
Line 3:		Line 3:

	<translate>		<translate>
			{{Economics}}

	<!--T:2-->		<!--T:2-->
	'''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.

PeterDuffy at 20:23, 7 February 2026

2026-02-07T20:23:37Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:23, 7 February 2026
Line 120:		Line 120:

	<!--T:42-->		<!--T:42-->
	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.		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.

	<!--T:43-->		<!--T:43-->

PeterDuffy at 23:16, 9 January 2024

2024-01-09T23:16:44Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:16, 9 January 2024
Line 190:		Line 190:

	<!--T:66-->		<!--T:66-->
	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.”<ref>~~REv~~. 3:16.</ref> 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>		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.”<ref>Rev. 3:16.</ref> 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>

PeterDuffy at 23:16, 9 January 2024

2024-01-09T23:16:02Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:16, 9 January 2024
Line 190:		Line 190:

	<!--T:66-->		<!--T:66-->
	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>		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.”<ref>REv. 3:16.</ref> 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>

PeterDuffy: Marked this version for translation

2024-01-09T23:06:48Z

Marked this version for translation

Show changes

PeterDuffy at 23:06, 9 January 2024

2024-01-09T23:06:38Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:06, 9 January 2024
Line 55:		Line 55:
	With productive man as his rationalistic thesis, Marx evolved a rationalistic antithesis. By denying the inherent Spirit which Hegel found within nature, Marx made human nature the antithesis of the productive man. Human nature created by the rational will is obedient only to so-called rational laws (in contrast to the seemingly irrational law of love).		With productive man as his rationalistic thesis, Marx evolved a rationalistic antithesis. By denying the inherent Spirit which Hegel found within nature, Marx made human nature the antithesis of the productive man. Human nature created by the rational will is obedient only to so-called rational laws (in contrast to the seemingly irrational law of love).

	Marx perceived the interaction of his thesis and antithesis as illimitable class struggle. His synthesis is not Hegelian transcendence. He doesn’t see Spirit transcending itself, becoming more and more of God. He sees synthesis as death and destruction. And that is where the fallen ones have determined to take the cycles of the Trinity: to pervert its cycles and to create not eternal life, not the ascension, but death.		Marx perceived the interaction of his thesis and antithesis as illimitable class struggle. His synthesis is not Hegelian transcendence. He doesn’t see Spirit transcending itself, becoming more and more of God. He sees synthesis as death and destruction. And that is where the [[fallen ones]] have determined to take the cycles of the Trinity: to pervert its cycles and to create not eternal life, not the ascension, but death.

	Marx proposed that social progress is achieved only through conflict between old and new systems and that class struggle is the great motive power of history.<ref>“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles,” ''The Manifesto of the Communist Party'' (1848), sect. 1, para. 1.</ref> The negative force which Hegel saw as inherent within the positive force and the cause of its cyclic progress, Marx identified in the social system as germs of its own destruction—reforms which ideally operate as a foreign body within an existing system to accelerate death. Progress is impaired by limited reform which prematurely reduces tension.		Marx proposed that social progress is achieved only through conflict between old and new systems and that class struggle is the great motive power of history.<ref>“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles,” ''The Manifesto of the Communist Party'' (1848), sect. 1, para. 1.</ref> The negative force which Hegel saw as inherent within the positive force and the cause of its cyclic progress, Marx identified in the social system as germs of its own destruction—reforms which ideally operate as a foreign body within an existing system to accelerate death. Progress is impaired by limited reform which prematurely reduces tension.
Line 125:		Line 125:
	[[Saint Germain]] comments on the fundamental errors in Marx’s philosophy:		[[Saint Germain]] comments on the fundamental errors in Marx’s philosophy:

	<blockquote>Some of you are aware that the study of the relationship of opposites in the planes of relativity is reflected in the dialectic of the nineteenth-century German philosopher Georg Hegel, who theorized that man’s thought process and all historical change result from the interplay of three elements: thesis, antithesis and synthesis. According to this observer of life’s forces, every thesis generates its opposite, or antithesis, and the interaction of the two produces a synthesis that transcends both. The emerging synthesis in turn becomes a new thesis, and the entire process is repeated again and again.~~</blockquote>~~		<blockquote>
			Some of you are aware that the study of the relationship of opposites in the planes of relativity is reflected in the dialectic of the nineteenth-century German philosopher Georg Hegel, who theorized that man’s thought process and all historical change result from the interplay of three elements: thesis, antithesis and synthesis. According to this observer of life’s forces, every thesis generates its opposite, or antithesis, and the interaction of the two produces a synthesis that transcends both. The emerging synthesis in turn becomes a new thesis, and the entire process is repeated again and again.

	~~<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>~~		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>~~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>~~		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>~~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>~~		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>~~But in the human “two-eyed” perception of the world acquired after the departure from the Edenic self-knowledge in and as the One—when the worldview of man and woman was no longer single in the immaculate All-Seeing Eye of God but the same as that of the band of seducing fallen angels called ~~serpents—there~~ were unalterably two sides to every human equation, with the pendulum swing hot/cold, left/right, always just waiting to happen.~~</blockquote>~~		But in the human “two-eyed” perception of the world acquired after the departure from the Edenic self-knowledge in and as the One—when the worldview of man and woman was no longer single in the immaculate All-Seeing Eye of God but the same as that of the band of seducing fallen angels called [[serpent]]s—there were unalterably two sides to every human equation, with the pendulum swing hot/cold, left/right, always just waiting to happen.

	~~<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>~~		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>~~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>		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 ==

PeterDuffy at 23:04, 9 January 2024

2024-01-09T23:04:39Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:04, 9 January 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[[File:Karl Marx 001.jpg\|thumb\|Karl Marx]]		<languages />
			[[File:Karl Marx 001.jpg\|thumb\|<translate>Karl Marx</translate>]]

			<translate>
	'''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 10:		Line 12:

	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.
			</translate>

	[[File:Hegel portrait by Schlesinger 1831.jpg\|thumb\|upright\|Georg Hegel, portrait by Jakob Schlesinger (1831)]]		[[File:Hegel portrait by Schlesinger 1831.jpg\|thumb\|upright\|<translate>Georg Hegel, portrait by Jakob Schlesinger (1831)</translate>]]

			<translate>
	== Hegel’s theory of dialectic ==		== Hegel’s theory of dialectic ==

Line 34:		Line 38:

	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>
			</translate>

	[[File:Ludwig feuerbach.jpg\|thumb\|upright\|Ludwig Feuerbach (1866)]]		[[File:Ludwig feuerbach.jpg\|thumb\|upright\|<translate>Ludwig Feuerbach (1866)</translate>]]

			<translate>
	=== Ludwig Feuerbach ===		=== Ludwig Feuerbach ===

Line 54:		Line 60:

	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>
			</translate>

	[[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.		[[File:Lenin-Trotsky 1920-05-20 Sverdlov Square (original).jpg\|thumb\|<translate>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.]]		[[Vladimir Lenin]], leader of the [[Russian Revolution]], addressing Red Army troops in Sverdlov Square, Moscow, May 5, 1920.</translate>]]

			<translate>
	== Class struggle ==		== Class struggle ==

Line 148:		Line 156:

	{{POB}}, pp. 101–03.		{{POB}}, pp. 101–03.
			</translate>

	<references />		<references />

Pduffy: link

2021-04-09T19:58:23Z

link

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:58, 9 April 2021
Line 111:		Line 111:
	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 ==

Pduffy: link

2020-06-17T04:27:09Z

link

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:27, 17 June 2020
Line 65:		Line 65:
	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.		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 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.		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.”