To Charles Moyer

I greatly appreciated your post on Spengler, Pound, Dialectics, and Neechee.

When you said that Spengler’s work was not polemical, I was somewhat
surprised.  How could any work that asserts the existence of a particular
cultural pattern NOT be polemical?  Spengler goes out of his way to refute
both Marx and Hegel on key points about the philosophy of history.  Would
you agree with the following for instance:  His “theory” espoused, as in the
Decline of the West, is not a mere concatenation of random observations
about culture “as he sees it,” but a generalized theory that contains
certain assumptions from which stem certain conclusions.  For instance, does
he not state as an axiom, that history,  regarded objectively, should be
seen without any center or ultimate point of reference?  Does he not say
that Western civilization is one of may possible cultures that  ”grow with
the same superb aimlessness as the flowers of the field ....”?    That seems
very polemical to me.  One can sympathize with his disillusionment in the
years 1914-1918 with the state of civilization, and one can agree with his
desire to reject some of the naive assertions about the inevitability of
linear progress (so common amongst 19th century theorists).   But did
Spengler improve the intellectual climate in which he lived, or merely moan
about it?  How is his ultimate conclusion any better than common relativism?
  If there is any value which Spengler promotes, what is that value other
than blind nationalism and the yearning for a hero? (or if you prefer,
preaching to us that Caesarism is inevitable because it is the next stage in
our development ---- I see little difference).

You express a lack of interest in dialectical materialism.  I agree with
your statements about the limitations of that method.  I oppose any form of
pure materialism, since it views the realities of mind and spirit as mere
epiphenomena or reflections of the material.  I understand that Spengler
wanted to write a metaphysical work in which he would explain role of
“spirit” in his philosophy of history.   Unfortunately we do not have that
work.  But we do have enough, don’t we, to make the following observation.
Spengler denies  that the spirituality of successive historical units
---taken together ---reveals the developing nature of spirit it self.  That
is fair enough.  But Spengler goes to the other extreme.  In his view, the
units have no rational connection with one another.  Such an outlook does
not differ substantially perhaps from that of Spengler’s contemporaries, the
Dadaists, who also reject reason.  But there is one important difference.
The Dadaists also reject nationalism, and embrace freedom.   Spengler (and
Pound) both appear to reject freedom, or at least show a signifcant lack of
interest in freedom (except, in Pound’s case, he shows an interest in
freedom of expression for those “qualified to exercise it,” to use his own
words).

Even Hegel, for all his faults, (and Marx, for all his) have coherent views
of history which see the development of human freedom, and the establishment
of rights and justice for all, as the essential immanent forces in
dialectical progression.   Spengler and Pound ignore this, and because of
their anti-democratic tendencies, they contributed to and encouraged those
who sought to destroy what is most valuable in the heritage of Western
civilization.

You and I may agree on the contributions which Jose Bove is trying to make
in the field of culinary culture.  The excerpts from Pound’s poetry on the
subject of “malbouffe” (as the French press currently refers to McDonaldized
food) are appropriate in this context.  They are noteworthy in and of
themselves, and do prove, do they not, that Pound was progressive in the
area of food?  Or do they?  (You knew I would have to ask).

The issue of junk food is peripheral to the struggle of Bove’s Confederation
Paysanne.  Of course, the media, (like Ezra Pound) is more concerned about
the TASTE of food than he is about the working conditions of those who
produce it.  The Western (US and French) media--- corporate controlled
media--- have stressed the junk food issue.  But the real issue is whether
food production is controlled by the multinational corporations
(agribusiness) or by the democratically controlled confederations and
cooperatives, which are currently under threat.  The media cannot easlly
quash the story of 30,000 non-violent protestors in a small town in southern
France, or the “demontage” of the McDonals in Millau.  But they can
trivialize the story, by making the focus almost exlusively on an issues of
“junk food” and  false nationalism (We are protecting French culture).  Bove
himself says the struggle is an INTERNATIONAL one, not merely a struggle of
the French against the rest of the world.  It is a struggle of the
syndicalists and trade unionists (who want to see more democratic control
over economic resources, land, and production) versus the multinationals.

You seem to dislike the word “democracy,” and assert that a belief in
democracy is limiting.  Do you object to the concept of democracy?  Do you
object to the notion that the only way to prevent the abuse of power is
devise systems which distribute power as widely as possible, and to make
sure that no one person or group can monopolize power, whether in the
economic or the political sphere?  I can appreciate the fact that democracy
will quite often exalt the mediocre over the exceptional.  This is a
drawback of democracy and of the republic.  Nevertheless, is it not
preferable to the kind of mediocrity which gains a foothold in Fascist,
Totalitarian, and so-called “Aristocratic” systems, which Pound supported?
I can think of few figures more mediocre than Tsar Nicholas II, or the last
emperor of China.  Mussolini and Hitler may fall into the category of
“impressive mediocrities”.  And Nietszche’s superman -- the great figure who
can leap beyond dialectical thought in a single bound-- looks better on
paper than in reality.  Napoleon, the supposed exemplar, is a far less
interesting a figure than Babeuf, Robespierre, Danton, or Marat, who (in
spite of all their shortcomings) at least had beliefs and made sacrifices,
for something other than personal ambition.

However, I might be wrong about some (or most) (or even all) of this.

In that case, pardon my presumption.

Regards,

Wei.




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