Carrol's comment on deep ecology speaks precisely to the point here. I
would not call genocide an epistemology e.g. theory of knowledge, but to
conflate deep ecology with that term is to ignore the ideological
substructures of both. This is En Lin Wei's problem aas well as
Casillo's and, as far as I can tell, Gill's.
Carroll's assertion that to be against 'big money' almost always leads
to fascism and authoritarianism is a gernalization that ignores history.
Also, it is good to remember that in these historical conditions where
power is everything Pound had none. Carlo Parcelli

Carrol Cox wrote:
>
> [log in to unmask] wrote:
>
> > it's funny, but I've always seen Pound as against big money.
>
> You introduce here an astonishingly complex issue of both theory
> and history. I am not opposed to money; I am opposed to the
> social relations that make money important. To be against big
> money, as Pound is, has almost always, *in practice*, led to
> racism and one or another form of authoritarian thought. It also
> leads, usually, to one or another form of conspiracy theory.
> The feature of Pound's poem that most directly links to its
> fascist thrust is its ascription of social misery to the individual
> evil of "money men." Placed in J. P. Morgan's social position,
> you or I or Pound would act exactly as Morgan did (or soon
> find ourselves displaced by someone who would). Hence Pound
> is trying to sweep back the ocean in that beautiful passage
> from Canto 41 beginning with "That they were to have a
> consortium" and ending with "because you are all for the
> *confine*." The great illusion of populist thought (and Pound
> writes in that tradition) is that one can maintain the basic
> social relations of capitalism but control the results of those
> social relations.
>
> You can, incidentally, see the same dynamic at work in what
> is called "deep ecology," the logical (and all too often the
> actual) results of which are arguments for genocide.
>
> Carrol

--
ÐÏ à¡± á