JB wrote:

>
>
>I can only conclude from this that to say Pound was against democracy is to
>say that Pound was against...... nothing?
>

How did you come to this conclusion?

[I will be glad to answer your original question. I am waiting to see how
others respond first.  Perhaps the question could be amplified a bit.  I
take it to mean something like this:  Where on earth, in history, in the
present, has democracy existed?  What individuals have died in defense of
democracy, true democracy, and worked tirelessly toward its realization?
----Is that a fair summary of your inquiry?]

I would like to welcome J. Hughes contribution to this discussion on moral
and social implications of Pound's thought.

You write:

>
>Though a new member of this literary forum, I feel compelled to respond to
>En Lin Wei's assertion that one must "question the value of scholarship or
>the study of literary works which is totally disconnected with moral or
>political judgments, especially in the case of Pound". The sentiment
>expresssed, after all, is surely a valid one: for we are all, to a greater
>or lesser extent, shaped by (and judged in relation to) the societal, moral
>and political environment into which we are cast - or have thrust upon us.
>

This is very aptly phrased.  I agree with the sentiments expressed here, as
long as we bear in mind that individuals are free to make choices in
response to the social environment into which we are thrown.


>Indeed, as Wei informs us, all writers, whether consciously or otherwise,
>conform to this rule - Pound more so than many. Are The Cantos not, from
>their first verse-paragraph until their final fragment, a bitter
>condemnation of Capitalist Usura? Did Ezra Loomis not find in Western
>society and economic policy a concrete illustration of the wider world's
>ills?

The Cantos do condemn usury.  But they do much more than this, I think you
will agree. Have your read Mussolini's  works? I recommend two:

Mussolini, Benito.  "The Doctrine of Fascism."  In Readings on Fascism and
National Socialism.  Selected by Members of the Department of Philosophy,
Universty of Colorado.  Athens, Ohio: Swallow Press, 1952.

Mussolini, Benito.  Fascism:  Doctrine and Institutions.  New York:  H.
Fertig,
1968.

The condemnations of capitalism in these works, and of usury are thorough
(and deceptive, of course).  Pound can condemn capitalist usury all he
likes; but if the solution he so enthusiastically endorses is worse than the
disease, how do we evaluate the moral and sociological ground of his work?
We cannot simply say, "Pound was against usury," and end our inquiry there.

Here are some questions.

What exactly about usury does Pound condemn?

How does Pound's condemnation of usury differ from the traditional fascist
criticisms of usury and of capitalism?

Why should any of us condemn usury? Should our condemnation not be made in
the context of condemnation of capitalism itself, and of the hierarchical
features of a society which allows a small class of people to gain control
over an inordinate proportion of the people's financial resources?

If the critique of usury is NOT placed in such a context,what value is it?
If a critique of usury (a form of exploitation) is coupled with endorsement
of an even greater form of exploitation (fascism) and an even more
hierarchical form of social organization (Confucianism), then what
conclusions can be drawn?

>
>I cannot, however, conclude in such a fashion. Pound, lest we forget, was
>first, foremost and forever a poet: much of his greatest work stems not
>from
>the forge of right-wing politics, nor from the furnace of social criticism:
>it was begotten rather in the obscure womb of the human creative impulse.

That is true.  But what does it have to do with the social, political, and
moral implications of Pound's work?  The statement you make about Pound
could also apply to Milton, Byron, Wordsworth, and Swinburne.

Such statements as "The work of Poet X was begotten in the rather obscure
womb of the human creative impluse,"  and " Poet X wrote verse far greater
than
>the sum of its syllables", true as they are, do NOT tell us WHAT Pound is
>attempting to convey, or what assumptions his work is grounded on.


>The epigraph to Lustra, for example, not to mention many other pre-Cantos
>creations, seems to owe little to societal promptings, being instead an
>expression of human transience as old as language itself:
>
>         And the days are not full enough
>         And the nights are not full enough
>         And life slips by like a field mouse
>                         Not shaking the grass.
>

Yes.  I have no disagreement with you here.  And if Pound had limited
himself to writing this sort of poetry, which deals with certain universal
aspects of the human psychological and spiritual condition (as Traherne did
in his extant works) our conversation would be quite different.


>Pound must, by definition, be a product of society and politics: he defined
>himself - and was himself defined - in the terms of their world.

Why "by definition"?   I am not a marxist, but I agree with Marx's dictum,
"History makes men, and men make history."   It is the second half of this
phrase that many Marxists ignore.  Human beings are, in part, shaped by
circumstances they do not control, yet they are free to determine their
response to the circumstance.  I strongly believe that human beings become
what they are, to a large degree, by virtue of their own personal choices.
What would be your view on that matter, if stated more fully?

>Wei is right to view Pound's work in relation to
>its wider "implications". . . .

I appreciate the fact that we agree on this approach, broadly speaking.


" to call him a "warmonger" . . ."

You are right in pointing out that simply to call him a "warmonger" is to do
Pound studies and the complexity of the issue a disservice.  But you will
agree--- will you not? ---that Pound's attitude toward war needs to be
characterized.  How do you understand Pound's attitude toward war, in light
of his praise of many of the most militarily aggressive emperors in Chinese
history (including Genghis Khan), and his unconditional support for
Mussolini, Hitler, and the Emperor Hirohito?

Fraternal salutations,

Wei

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