jb wrote:

<<but if the essence of teaching is to be found in the exemplar of the lived
experience of Jesus of Nazareth, then the production and accumulation of
wealth is incompatible.  >>

How is this so?  Jesus, as a carpenter, produced goods.  There is no
indication in THE WORDS of Jesus himself, or in the life, to show that the
production of wealth itself is in any way immoral.  Of course there is the
saying, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it
is for a rich man to enter heaven.”  But one may only conclude from this
that riches or the private ownership of riches by an individual is immoral
(becoming a rich man, while others are poor or starving).  The production of
wealth would appear to be perfectly acceptable, as long as one does not do
so for selfish reasons, but in a cooperative relationship with others.
Producing  food, housing, medicines, good books, and other useful goods can
all be a part of “loving one’s neighbor as oneself.”

Even if one takes the very narrow view that one should live one’s life
exactly as Jesus did (which is clearly impossible), one cannot exclude the
act of producing goods as something completely extraneous or contrary to the
life of Christ as it was lived.  In addition to his life as a carpenter, and
as a fishermen (both productive activities) Christ also engaged in
productive acts during his ministry.  His changing water to wine could be
considered an act of economic production.  (Of course for most people it
would be easier to change grapes into wine, but in any case, Christ could
have nothing to say against those who manufacture and distribute wine, since
he did so himself).  When Christ turned a few fish and loaves of bread into
food for the multitudes, that was also an act of economic production.
Christ’s life does not teach us that those who produce bread and who go
fishing are immoral, and should therefore give it up.

<<I dare say that the image of Jesus driving the
moneylenders from the temple serves as a large exclamation point -- the
point being that the "production of wealth" (don't you just love these
capitalist
euphemisms) has no place in the holy place of god.>>

Yes. The point was that such activity should not take place in the “House of
the Father”.   Furthermore, the money changers were working with those who
sold money of animals to be sacrificed.  Daniel, Isaiah, and Jesus all said
animal sacrifice was pointless, and inconsistent with a genuine spirit of
worship.

Compare this with Pound’s view on the matter.  Look carefully at the record
of Pound’s condemnation of primitive rituals in the Hebrew scriptures while
he strives to defend rituals (at least as primitive) sanctioned by
Confucius.


Pound is extremely sensitive, during the 30’s and 40’s, to criticisms of
Confucius' excessive attention to matters of decorum.  The Confucian
writings contain a large number of what are, by both modern Chinese and
modern Western standards, meaningless formal observances.  Pound reacts
venomously to scholarly works which highlight this aspect of the Chinese
philosopher's thought.

  I have found very curious opinions as to Kung's formalism.
  L. Vivante recently showed me "a horrible reference book"
  as he called it, where the condensing ass had cited
  nothing but details of Kung's behavior and several rules
  of formality
    (S.P., 87).

Explanations concerning fully antiquated rules are legion in both the
Analects and the Li Ki (Book of
Ceremonies), which Pound frequently praised.  Analogies may be found with
portions of the books of
"Leviticus" and "Deuteronomy" in the Old Testament, where the ritual
prescriptions for animal sacrifices and
other obsolete rites are laid out in detail.   Yet Pound's Confucian fervor,
resembling and far exceeding T.S.
Eliot's enthusiasm for Anglican dogma and ritual, causes him to give a
blanket defense of all the formal rules
propagated by both Confucius and Mencius.

  Anyone who had read the text of Kung and Mencius
  would know that at no point and on no occasion do
  such rules overstep common sense
       (S.P. 88).

This is the statement of a religious enthusiast, a fanatic.  Pound partly
realizes that such blanket statements are impossible to sustain, and
occasionally resorts to a historical justification, or a sort of
relativistic
quasi-anthropological justification, for rules which clearly do "overstep
common sense."

For instance, Pound defends, if only hyperbolically, even such ceremonies as
the animal sacrifice.

  As to sacrifices, I think the body of notes on the
  subject, everything that has come to my attention,
  is just plain stupid to the point of imbecility.
  'Pleasing to heaven,' etc.  Various ideas of pleasing
  the spirits are all very well, but there could still be
  a lesson in animal sacrifice for any group that had
  evolved beyond primitive stages.  Animals are killed
  now in abattoirs [slaughterhouses]; the sight of a
  killing can remind us in the midst of our normal
  semi-conscious-ness of all that goes on in our vile
  and degraded mercantilist ambience, that life
  exists by the destruction of other life.  The sight
  of one day's hecatomb might even cause thought in
  the midst of our democracy and usuriocracy
        (S.P., 68).

Pound's rhetorical defense of animal sacrifice permits him to ignore the
issue of outmoded rituals.  His stance
is profoundly contradictory in that he views ancient Chinese sacrifice as
educational, even as he imagines it
performed in a modern context; whereas he sees ancient Hebrew sacrificial
ritual, now long discarded, as
evidence of present-day Jewish sadism (See Casillo, 62-63).

One might defend Pound's sympathetic attitude toward Confucian rituals on
the grounds that he saw
Confucius' approach to the question of rites as far-seeing and appropriate
for the times in which he lived.
However, such an evaluation does not appear to be accurate.  The Analects
records that one of Confucius'
own disciples, evidently a more far-seeing man than the "sage" himself,
asked if it would be possible to revise
the rite and "do away with the offering of a sheep connected with the
inauguration of the first day of each
month."  Confucius' reply was "you love the sheep; I love the ceremony"
(Analects, III, xvii 2).  This anecdote
illustrates the fact that Confucius loved the ritual as something valuable
in itself, and that he sought to
preserve what was ancient, even though the intellectual ferment of his era
was signalling a relaxation of
orthodoxies.

<<further, to blithely add
a shibboleth against engaging in exploitation and power relationships while
accumulating wealth is disingenuous; >>

On what basis is this claim made?  The accumulation of wealth and the
production of wealth are constitute exploitation when the laborer does not
own the means of production.  In a cooperative, a mutual society, a
worker-owned, worker-controlled, worker-managed enterprise, exploitation can
cease.

<<any fair examination of the record of
the accumulation of wealth in any historical period shows that exploitation
and the creation of power relationships are fundamental to such
accumulation.>>

Not fundamental in any logical or scientific sense.  The history of
economics reveals that power relationships, and exploitive hierarchies can
be eliminated.  What social history does also proves is that, until now,
exploitation and power relationships have dominated economic production.  Of
course, if we lived in 1450 you might tell me that aristocracy, monarchy,
and feudal systems of organizing production were fundamental to economic
activity.   If we lived in imperial Rome you might tell me that slavery is
fundamental to any system of economic activity or social organization.
Pound’s problem is that he refuses to go forward, either theoretically or in
his imagination. Instead, he idealizes feudal and pre-feudal societies, such
as the social organization which prevailed under the Zhou (Chou) dynasty.

Regards,

Wei
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com