Wei,
If I can get my hands on the library copy of broadcasts again, I will look
for the quote. But I assure you, Pound does say it. Whether the words are
"empty" --whether Pound's other assertions contradict, or his actions
contravene, that remark on the american system-- are issues to be
addressed. I bring the existence of the remark to your attention.
And Pound does talk about collectivism. Several times in relevant contexts,
he mentions cummings's EIMI, for example. And the "homestead" as the basis
of culture is a leitmotiv in the broadcasts, is it not?
He talks about trial by a jury of peers. His emphasis -- as one might
expect -- on peers, actually on the difficulty of finding peers who would be
able to judge his actions. What do you make of the concept of "peers" in the
american system of individual rights, by the way?
He writes about checks and balances.
And so on.
Tim Romano
----- Original Message -----
From: "En Lin Wei" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2000 3:26 AM
Subject: Re: EPOUND-L Digest - 7 Jul 2000 to 8 Jul 2000 (#2000-53)
> Tim Romano wrote:
> >>
> In the wartime broadcasts, Pound praises the U.S. political system, as it
> was hammered out by the founding fathers, as purty near the best one could
> ever hope to get, the culmination of the best of western tradition. But he
> thinks the country has gone to hell and that the central tenets of the
> Constitution are being violated.
> >>
>
> This assertion needs some substantiation. So far I have seen very little
> evidence provided which can show that Pound believed in the central
tenets
> of the Constitution. The basic democratic principle of a government run
by
> elected representatives and an elected executive is clearly not supported
by
> Pound. The system of checks and balances, instituted in tripartite
division
> between executive, legislature, and judiciary is also not supported by
> Pound. Supreme power in Fascist Italy was fully vested in the "Duce,"
who
> was unelected, and unaccountable, either to a legislature or a judicial
> branch of government, yet Pound gave his full unqualified support to that
> political system.
>
> So what Constitutional tenets does Pound support? Would he support any of
> the rights guaranteed in the first ten amendments?
>
> 1. Pound had little or no respect for the first amendment freedoms.
> Freedom of Speech--You recall that in the introduction to his radio
> speeches, Pound stipulated that the policy of freedom of speech was
accorded
> only to those "qualified to exercise it." Pound had no objections to any
of
> the abridgments of freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, or freedom
of
> speech. perpetrated by Hitler, Mussolini, or Hirohito. Nor did Pound
> support the first amendment rights to freedom of religion. Recall, when a
> Jewish acquaintance in Italy was laid off as a result of the new
anti-Jewish
> law, Pound said the government "Did the right thing."
>
> 2. The right to bear arms. Pound had no objections to Fascist Italian
and
> German efforts to keep arms out of the hands of the people, so as to
assure
> the power of the dictators' armed agencies.
>
> 3. Quartering of soldiers. Under fascism (which was the most severe sort
> of "collectivism") people were seen as appendages of the state, possessing
> no right to deny access to their home by any public official. Pound did
not
> object to this.
>
> 4. The right against searches and siezures was constantly violated by
the
> fascists. Did Pound ever object to such actions in private or in public?
>
> 5. Right to a jury trial. Countless opponents of fascist rule were
> summarily sentenced without fair trials. While Pound was complaining
about
> "Jewsevelt" he never raised a peep about the widespread policy of
> politically motivated arrests in Germany and in Italy.
>
> 6. We can say the same about the right to a public trial contained in the
> sixth amendment.
>
> 7, 8, 9, 10 None of the rights regarding bail, or the prohibitions
against
> "cruel and unusual punishment" were honored by the fascists or by Pound.
Do
> you have any evidence to the contrary?
>
> So WHICH central tenets of the constitution does Pound support by any
> explicit statements? And which of these central tenets were also
supported
> by the fascist and nazi dictators, and Chinese emperors, which he so
> enthusiatically backed?
>
> >
> You mention that he had no problem with
> Mussolini's longevity but railed against Roosevelt's. Pound thought R. was
> destroying the country, taking it down the road to collectivist ruin . . .
.
> >
>
> Where does Pound specifically object to collectivism? Mussolini, Gentile,
> Odon Por, Hitler, and all the fascists were very clear on this point, and
> Pound knew it: Under fascism the will of individual is subordinate to the
> will of the SUPREME LEADER, who embodies the general will. This is the
most
> basic tenet of fascist political thought. (See Odon Por quote below). It
is
> stated over and over in the Cantos under the rubric of the rule of ONE
MAN,
> which is represented by the Chinese characters "i jen", (one man). Pound
> even spoke well of Lenin on several occasions, and of Mao. He rejected
Mao
> when it became clear to Pound that Mao was anti-Confucian.
>
> >>Pound regarded the congress as complicit in this betrayal
> of the constitution. But to explain this inconsistency--M. can rule for as
> long as he wants, but R. cannot-- solely in terms of Pound's
"anti-semitism"
> is to cross the bridge but halfway.
> >>
>
> You are right that to explain Pound's support for the twenty plus year
reign
> of Mussolini in terms of anti-semitism would be incomplete. In fact, I
> would say that anti-semitism plays virtually no part in his support for
> Mussolini. Pound supports Mussolini because he believes that Mussolini
> acts by "right reason" and "the general conviction that Mussolini is bound
> to be right." This is what he says in Jefferson and/or Mussolini. He
> supports the fascist philosophy.
>
> >>
> Pound associates _collectivist ruin_
> with the Jewish bankers and international loan-capital. He thinks of the
> american people as having lost the spark, their race-will.
> >>
>
> In other words, he is either irrational and easily duped, or he believes
> (along with Hitler and other Nazis) that the Jews were a convenient
> scapegoat, useful for diverting people from the central structural
problems
> inherent in the capitalist system. Perhaps you can tell me which. Or is
> there a third alternative?
>
>
> >>He thought that
> homogeneity of race was necessary for true cultural cohesion.
> >>
>
> How is this any different from saying he was a racist and an anti-semite?
> In one radio broadcast he said the Japanese and Chinese were fortunate in
> being the only "unbekiked" races. How should we interpret such a
> statement?
>
>
> >>
> >>Pound's hatred
> of collectivism deserves equal emphasis.
> >>
>
>
> Feel free to emphasize it. But if you do, it requires evidence, and an
> explanation about how embracing fascist collectivism indicates a "hatred
of
> collectivism." State intervention is an integral part of fascist
economic
> policy, and was this was well understood by Pound. Mussolini engaged in
> collectivist economic policy to a far greater degree than Roosevelt ever
> did.
>
> If you have any doubts that Pound supported FASCIST collectivism, then
> glance at this quote from a work by Odon Por, which Pound himself
translated
> into English, for publication in the New Weekly (in 1935).
>
> In economic autarchy, the creative will is
> transformed from a phenomenon supported by
> individual initiative into a **collective** phenomenon --
> manifests itself, that is, in the will, in the totalitarian
> action of a nation determined to give itself a new and
> better order.
> Economic autarchy is characterized by a spirit
> intolerant of everything passive and indolent, a spirit
> which wishes to valorise everything in the nation, all
> the material and spiritual forces -- or rather, which
> unites the material and spiritual forces in a single
> flux of energy. For convenience, (hence consciously)
> capitalism neglects certain sectors of production;
> autarchy, functioning for collective convenience,
> develops all sectors. Capitalism is preoccupied with
> organizing and not always with intensifying certain
> sectors at the expense of others, while economic
> autarchy spurs on the all-round productivity of
> every country.
> (Por, 27).
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
>
>
|
