Charles moyer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Subject: Re: Pound's psychology ii
>
>Tim,
>     The "fitful sun", the magpie's black and white plumage are very
>closely
>associated alchemical symbols of sun and moon, Apollo and Artemis, animus
>and amima. Jung said, "We can safely call the light the central mystery of
>philosophical alchemy." Then see Jung's <Mysterium Conjunctionis> and
><Psychology and Alchemy>, although I believe there is more to it than
>"individuation" short of the transmutation of lead to gold, and Nicholas
>Flamel's claim must make us wonder at that. "Aurum nostrum non est aurum
>vulgi".
>     Your line from "Parzival" - is it from these in Book X
>
>     "One who has heart's sincerity,
>     Of love will never be quite free.
>     Now with joy and now with rue,
>     Real love is devotion true."
>

This is an excellent analysis of spiritual symbolism using Jungian
methodology.  We might extend this analysis to assert that in Pound's heroic
mythology, Hitler is Apollo and Jean of Arc is Artemis, alternate
expressions of the animus and the anima.

>     Blunt was against Empire building and went to prison as a result of
>his
>actions. Pound admired him for his stand.

That's news to me.  Can you provide a quotation or source to show 1) why
Pound admired Blunt, and 2) MOST IMPORTANTLY, that he specifically praised
him for a stand he took "against Empire." ?  Furthermore, we know that Pound
approved of the expansion of the Italian fascist, Nazi German, and Japanese
empires.  Given that fact, how do we read Pound's remarks regarding Blunt?
Hitler, Pound, and Mussolini all admired any attempt to thwart the expansion
of British imperial drives.

>On the surface and in many ways
>misguided the international communist movement was designed to build a
>world
>empire to replace the capitalist one.

This is true, I think.  The Stalinist strategy was merely to use the Marxist
- Leninist movements throughout the world, in Eastern Europe and in China,
to extend the control of Moscow to other parts of the world, which would
have to submit to what the Albanians rightly called , "Soviet Socialist
Imperialism."   The break between Mao and Krushchev was largely over the
issue of whether or not China should submit to Soviet Russian dominance.


>But Spengler pointed out as early as
>1918 that "Practical communism with its 'class-war' - today a long obsolete
>and adulterated phrase- is nothing but the trusty henchman of big Capital .
>. .

There seems to be some truth and error in this formulation.  Yes, the
Communist Movement, as represented by Stalinist parties, such as the
Communist Party of the USSR, and the Chinese Communisty Party, have been in
their own ways, if not trusty henchman of Big Capital, at least the creators
of a system which worked hand in glove to suppress the worker, extract the
surplus value of labor, and use the "opposing camp" as a scapegoat to
justify its oppressive policies.  But is the word "class war" an obsolete
and adulterated phrase?   Adulterated, certainly, but hardly obsolete, if
properly defined and analyzed.

Pound acknowledged the existence of class war in a letter to Zukovsky.

"As fer class war/BALLZ.  Yes, class wars occur."

His historical definition of it was not very precise, but he did refer to
the class war between

"Noble and peasant/noble and serf/
  coming from opposite ends,
  with centuries of tradition/
  == clash.  YES, hell yes/
  and HAS been, and Louis
  fat noze was deheaded . . . "
     (Pound/Zukofsky, 159).

So when you say "class war" is an obsolete phrase, what do you mean?  Do you
mean that there is no such thing as "class war" or that the phrase needs to
be revised?  Conservative Republicans in the US seem very fond of the phrase
"class envy" by which they mean the attempt of the lower classes to
[unjustly] demand government policies to redistribute wealth.

Democrats speak of "huge tax breaks for the rich".  Using the word, "rich",
I believe they are referring to the upper class, or as Congressional leaders
(like Bonior) say, the richest 1-2 per cent.  Ralph Nader speaks of the rule
of the US by Corporations, for the Corporations , and of the Corporations.
Buchanan castigates the transnational corporations.  So whatever we may call
these opposing groups (rich and poor, the filthy rich and the rest of us,
the corporations and the citizens), there does appear to be a class war,
however much the media may wish to obcure the fact.  So you might wish to
clarify the meaning of the sentence "class war is obsolete phrase".

>     "Home (again) to old lies and new infamy;
>     usury age-old and age-thick
>     and liars in public places"

Does not this quote imply that there are two classes:  1)  usurers, and 2)
those who are being exploited?  And is not the banking class (the group of
people who own the banks, and therefore, most of the loan capital, most of
the corporations, and most of the land . . .) --- is not this group the
class of usurers?  How do you interpret the above quote?



----  Wei

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