Tim Romano <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

<<Subject: Re: Pound's Psychology and Empire

Wei,

You write:

>I don’t think that sort of “realpolitik”  was of great interest to Pound.
>  Pound genuinely believed his support for fascism was based on a
>moral foundation.

<<I would  agree with the second statement without qualification.>>

Then we both agree on this point.


<<But Pound
did see the fascists as engaged in a struggle with british imperialism and
an imperialist soviet ally, the two enemies of fascism being united by
corrupt economic systems.>>

Hitler and Mussolini both saw their fascist parties in this same way.  The
question then is, does Pound view fascism in a way which differs
substantially from Mussolni's and from Hitler's?  If his view is essentially
the same, then is his thinking not just as faulty, and just as defective as
the thought of all the fascist propagandists?


>Pound believed in highly stratified, extremely hierarchical forms of
>goverment. He thought fascism was the best form for Europe, and that
>Confucian autocracy would be the best form for East Asia. I have
>consistently argued that there are NO BENEFITS.
>  How can one leave out the
>benefits when there are none?

<<And I have consistently asked you to described the benefits ONLY AS POUND
PERCEIVED THEM.  Note my _emphasis_:>>

I believe this question has been answered already.  But what is the
metaphysical or epistemological basis of this question?  Are we to say,
relativistically, that Pound's views can be explained and understood ONLY in
their own terms?  And if that is the case, can we not do the same thing for
Hitler, Mussolini, and for all the fascist propagandists?

Suppose one were to say,

<<And I have consistently asked you to described the benefits ONLY AS
***MUSSOLINI***
PERCEIVED THEM.  Note my _emphasis_:>>

Should we then justify all Mussolini's opinions, and explain them on the
basis of the notion that the "benefits" of fascism should only be looked at
AS MUSSOLINI PERCEiVED THEM?


<<But Pound  provides examples over and over again  of the 'proper' attitude
of rulers to domestic issues.   One might consider him obtuse and
non-egalitarian . . . .>>

If the overwhelming majority of exemplary leaders are fascist,
proto-fascist, authoritarian, or imperialist, then what conclusion should we
draw?  What conclusion do you draw?

<< but Pound's motives had nothing whatoever to do with
WEAKENING ACCOUNTABILITY.>>

I am glad you emphasize this point, and I would ask:  How is it possible to
endorse systems of government in which the rulers are NOT ACCOUNTABLE to the
people, without weakening the very idea of accountability?

Pound may or may not have been motivated to advocate certain systems of
government precisely because the rulers were unaccountable.  I do not know
how we can attain absolute certainty with regard to Pound's inmost
motivations.

I have suggested the possibility that Pound's subconscious motivations may
be completely opposed to his conscious manner of advocacy.  In other words,
while he praised fascism, authoritarianism, and imperialism, it MAY BE, that
subconsciously, in some almost incomprehensible way, he was in favor of
democracy, of egalitarian values, and the freedom of all nations from
foreign subjugation.

Of course we could make the same assertions about others fascist leaders and
propagandists:  Mussolini and Gentile, we might say, were all in favor of
accountability.  The leader was supposed to be accountable to the collective
will, because the leader was placed in power by the collective will, and
because the leader is the spiritual embodiment of the collective will.  The
problem is that the consciously stated views of Gentile and of Pound
deliberately omit discussion of the ordinary mechanisms which might, in any
form of social organisation, ACTUALLY MAKE  a leader accountable.  This is a
very serious omission.





<<The Cantos are replete with evidence of what Pound considered, rightly or
wrongly, to be the fruits of strong central rule.>>


Yes, they are.  And when we study his examples, what conclusion do you come
to?  "Rightly or wrongly" will not do.  Should we not judge whether his
examples are right or wrong?

>


<<Even so,  you ought to risk a fuller accounting of what Pound perceived to
be the benefits of strong central rule by a moral ruler.>>

Strong central rule by a moral ruler !!!  There we have the essential
fallacy of Confucianism, and of fascism.  I admit, strong central rule by a
moral ruler is better than such rule by an immoral ruler. But that is not
the issue, is it?  The issue, I think, is that people use the doctrine of
the "benefits of strong central rule by a moral ruler" TO ATTAIN POWER.  The
result is almost always disastrous.  Why?  Because the "good ruler" is
almost inevitably corrupted.  Only a SYSTEM which checks power is a
guarantee against corruption.

Don't you agree with the axiom:

POWER CORRUPTS, ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY.

Pound, Mussolini, and Hitler clearly did not.  And given Pound's assessments
regarding the attributes of the "moral leader", we must call into question
his formulation of the notion of rule by the "moral ruler."  If he chooses
Mussolini and Hiter as exemplars, what does that say about his moral and
ethical judgement?

If you think there are benefits to strong central rule by a moral ruler,
then perhaps you should state what they are.  For my part, I believe the
whole notion is a myth which is used almost exclusively by power grabbers.

Pound does a great deal to foster this myth, and while that does not make
him guilty of any atrocities personally, does it not cast a terrible moral
shadow over his entire poetic and intellectual enterprise?

Salut,

Wei


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