The Scale of Perfection, Book 2, Part 1 – Chapter 1

dohpeterchina's picture

SECTION I: That a Man is the Image of God after the Soul and not after the Body; and how he is restored and reformed thereto that was misshapen by Sin
SECTION II: That Jews and Pagans and also false Christians are not reformed effectually through the virtue of the Passion through their own Faults

These are chapters 1 to 3 of The Scale of Perfection – Book 2 in Middle English:
This chapitle scheweth that a man is seid the image of God aftir the soule and not aftir the bodi.
Hou it nedide to mankynde that oonli thorugh the passioun of oure Lord it schulde be restorid and reformed that was forsaken bi the first synne.
That Jewes and paynymes and also fals Cristene men are not reformed effectuali thorugh vertu of this passioun for here owen defaute.

jnwarren's picture

Misreading Marx

    Brother JN,

    Yes, I was wrong it was Sigmund The Analyzer that used that opiate quote.

No, you were right originally: read my post to willbulow on this.

    I want to thank you for taking the time to pick me apart and pointing out my many flaws, as an unlearned babbler that just stepped off The Tower of Babel. So thank you very much for the Analyzing of my post, Sigmund probably couldn't have done better.

I doubt it: he was wrapped up in his own contradictions and abandoned much of his theoretical work later in life.

    I see you like to break each section down and answer each individually. I'm just going to post some answers to your remarks, with facts from Karl.

    I can understand you awe of Karl's Works. I do know that Karl was a forward radical thinker like his friends Ludwig and Bruno and as did most of The Young and Left Hegelians who were the young thinkers of his day. Not that I'm trying to belittle Karl's work, but just point out the obvious mistake that he has made with his theory and application of Socio-Economic Change, I quot from The German Ideology;

First, let me point out some mistakes you've made thus far: Marx was a forward-thinking radical, but he did not, and history does not alot him the same shelf-space as si granted Feuerbach and (either) Bauer, whom he poked fun at and dismissed in his early work, The German Ideology, which you quote. Apparantly, you've read the book very selectively, or not at all.

    "Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence."

    This is the "Change" I was referring to JN.

What Marx means here (and perhaps the misunderstanding arises out of taking him out of context) is that, whereas the philosophy of the preceding millenia departed from idealistic grounds (concepts, ideas, "Particulars or "Universals") historical materialism will venture to make statements about and influence reality on the basis of empirical evidence, ie., the actually existing world, or as he puts it in your quote: "[t]he conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence." The premises he refers to are the world unadulterated by concepts or ideological lenses.

    And from Section One, The Communist Manifesto.

    This was to take Capitalism to it's end through the organized actions of an "International Working Class", the proletariat. This was to occur through organized revolutionary actions and replace Capitalism. This would lead to a stateless, classless society called Pure Communism.

Indeed, but you never did quote the Manifesto (which should be standard reading for every Kindergartener).

    Karl on Capitalism; Karl believed the role that "Internal Social Contradictions" played in the historical process of Socialism would, in its turn, replace Capitalism. from The German Ideology.

You are actually confusing the thoughts and ideas of Marx with those of Lenin and Trotsky, who advocated a crazed, religious sect known as "Dialectical Materialism", which arguably did more harm than good to the cause of socialism. Read more about it here and here.

    So who were The Revolutionary's that followed Karl's Theory, or should I say his Theology on Systemic Understanding of Socio-Economic Change. The list of The World Leadership who followed Karl's Teachings. I have already given to you in my last post the list of the followers of Karl's Communism, which you rejected. but here they are again; Lenin, Stalin, Hitler,Hồ Chí Minh, Castro and Mao Zedong.

Not only is one of the individuals you mentioned (Hitler) not an advocate of socialism or communism (he placed communists in death camps), but every other individual you mentioned was perhaps the embodiment of the most extreme and tyrannical form that Marx's system could take on to appear in world history. You are forgetting individuals like him, him, him, her, him, her, him him, him and countless others. Again, socialists are described by Edwin Arnold as "they whose bugle rings, that all wars may cease; ...they will pay the Kings their cruel price for Peace; ...they whose steadfast watchword h what Christ did teach—Each man for his brother first, and Heaven, then, for each...they who will not falter — many swords or few —" and so on and so on.

    As with all Theories, they are just that. So until applied and proven workable they are still just Theory(Karl's Communist Theology).

Equality is "just a theory"? This is hardly the kind of self-hating I would expect from a soul born in the last 200 years!

    While This Change is also taking place today, we will see if it can be applied to The Social Justice of todays Socialism in The Governments of Europe! Europe seems to be coming apart with their own Socio-Economic Change formulated by Karl which has been adapted by The EU(European Union).

I would hardly call the reforms placed under the rule of a despot and a bureaucrat (ie., Napoleon and Bismarck) "revolutionary"!

    So lets wait and see how Socialism will work out over the long haul of time.

We have yet to see a true socialist sovereign! Also, "socialism in one country" is bound for the rocks--this much history has shown us!

    And on your last,I quot, ...You again prove your painful ignorance of history and theory...

Perhaps you should try the show on your own foot, before you try to press someone's else's foot into it!

    So, as my painful ignorance of history and theory is still the same. I will not say more.

    I will now let the blind lead the blind as Warrior7 has presented so elegantly with such few words.

Well, you can start with learning proper grammar--that would be a start.



Peace to you, too.