jb,

I think you might have inadvertently misunderstood my previous post.

You wrote:

<< what in the
world do you think the production of wealth involves, making a table? >>

I think the production of wealth involves the expenditure of labor to add
value to certain materials.  (The labor theory of value as enunciated by
Smith and Franklin, and amplified by Marx is the most useful theory, I
think).
What do you think it involves?

<<sewing a dress?>>

Yes. This is adding value to given materials to produce wealth, and is
therefore one example of economic production.  (But only if the dress is
produced for exchange or sale).

<<at the level of the individual this doesn't usually produce wealth,
it barely manages subsistence.>>

What does the individual produce, if not wealth?  How is subsistence
possible without some such production of wealth?   In the case of Jesus,
when he (and his father) acted as carpenters, they added value to the
materials they purchased, and sold them.  They used the proceeds to purchase
other goods which were necessary for subsistence, and for the continuation
of production.  This is a common feudal and pre-feudal mode of production.
I am suprised you find it odd or strange.  In developing countries this is
still how many, many people still produce wealth.   (Granted, we are not
talking about large amounts of wealth; but it is the only kind of wealth
that over half the world's population has access to).

<<the production of goods and services is not
synonymous with producing individual wealth.>>

I did not say it was synonymous.  I simply said it was one way of producing
wealth, that Jesus engaged in it, and that consequently there was no reason
to believe he was against the production of wealth.


<<the logic of your remarks above suggests that it's okay to become wealthy,
as long as one does it in the
absence of the poor; >>

This is one way, perhaps, to interpret my words.  But that was not the
meaning I wished to convey.  I am differentiating between two acts:
PRODUCING WEALTH, and BECOMING WEALTHY.  It seems that Jesus did not have
any problem with the first, but said that the second was fraught with all
sorts of moral difficulties and spiritual peril.

<<I'll tell you what's clear; you
miss the spirit of the teaching of Christ just as badly as you miss the
spirit of the poet in Pound.>>

Well, of course there are as many exponents of the "spirit of the teaching
of Christ" as there are individuals.  I leave it to you to expound the
teaching as you see fit of course.  You could spell it out for us if you
like.  I have no objection. [As to "the spirit of the poet in Pound," I am
trying to explicate the meaning of Pound's work, which may not be precisely
the same thing that you are talking about.  In any case, the same rule as
regards "the spirit of the teaching of Christ" may apply.  I invite you to
give us your rendering of the "the spirit of the poet in Pound," as you see
it.]

  <<anyone who would claim that the miracle of changing water to wine is an
act of
economic production with a straight face must be truly desperate!>>

You can gauge the extent to which I am determined to make this claim (with a
straight face) by the following:  I take my cue from the Liberation
Theologians, and their predecessors, such as Winstanley, who spoke about God
as a Producer.  I presume you acknowledge the notion of God as a Creator as
being within the realm of acceptable discourse.  The Creation of the
Universe by God can be viewed, at the most basic level, as an act of
economic production (it is much more than that, certainly).  Christ is,
according to most Western theologians the embodiment of God on earth.  When
he creates wine out of water, this act represents (in the economic realm)
the equivalent of certain amount of labor time which otherwise would have
been needed to produce the said amount of wine. This act of the creation of
wine out of water may resemble the creation of the physical universe by God,
insofar as it appears to violate the laws of nature (as comprehended within
the limitations of ordinary human understanding).

In any case, the act of creation, of making something (by a human or by a
divine agency) makes other acts of economic production possible, or frees up
labor for other actions.  Winstanley said the earth was the "Common treasury
of Humanity" given to humankind by God so that each should be able to make
his living.  This seems reasonable to me.  I find it difficult to believe
that either God or Christ (or both) can be opposed to the creation of
wealth, since they both engage in it.  The God-man (Jesus Christ) fishes,
and acts as a carpenter to demonstrate that he wishes to share his labor
with humankind.  According to Gustavo Gutierrez, author of "A Theology of
Liberation," the work of Christ is presented to us simultaneously a
liberation from sin, and from all its consequences: despoiliation, hatred,
and injustice."   (TL, 158).  What Christ would oppose in our current
context, I think, is exploitation:   mass production where the worker has no
control over the means of production, where he has no democratic voice in
the organization of the conditions of labor, or in the distribution of the
proceeds of labor.


"it's true that not everyone could live life exactly as Christ lived . . . "

We do agree here.

"no one, including Christ, ever expected that they could -- "

We agree here also.

<<but it is expected that a
Christian should base his or her life on the ethical and moral dimensions
that Christ taught, and which was exemplified in his life.>>

We appear to agree here also.  I think our differences may simply lie in the
manner in which we believe that Christ's teachings can be applied in the
economic sphere.  Pound, I think, did not believe it desireable to
contemplate that question.  That may be one of the reasons that his economic
analyses suffer from several shortcomings, from the ethical, moral, or
spiritual perspective.  How else can we explain his endorsing fascist
economic policies which hastened the economic collapse of Italy, and which
deprived the worker of control over the fruits of his labor?  How else can
we explain his strong belief in Confucian forms of economic order which only
reinforced the power of the feudal lords at the expense of the Chinese
peasant?

Regards,

Wei


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