Wei,

I said:

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

You replied:

> 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?
>
> 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?


I am NOT suggesting that Pound's views can be explained and understood ONLY
in their own terms. What  I AM suggesting is that no explanation or
understanding of Pounds views can be complete without  an attempt to
understand them in their own terms.

You ask:
>
> 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?
>

I conclude that Pound would have been content to remain an "aristo-democrat"
had the threat of world communism not arisen. He found communism abhorrent,
and his anti-communism was integral to the support he gave the fascist
cause.

> << 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?
>

Poetic Justice would hold them accountable.   If they are greedy, for
example, they might find themselves with their bellies slit open, stuffed to
the gills with coins.



> 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.
>

I would prefer to stay above ground, and focus on the regression from
aristo-democrat to fascist. The state of affairs in American and Europe
during the 30s is likely to provide a more intelligible and more meaningful
explanation of Pound's thought than the mechanics of repressed anima could.


> 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 Leader will be taking cues from sage advisors, who have studied the
classics of good governance. The good leader obeys the stars and the
seasons. Pound espouses a practical mysticism.


> <<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?
>

I would say that you tend to leap to judgment.   "Rightly or wrongly" WILL
do, as an _approach_, as a coming-towards the Cantos.


> 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. [TR]



> 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.

Pound was willing to sacrifice checks and balances for a system which seemed
better able to combat world-communism and the degradation of international
loan-capital. One understands from the broadcasts that Pound felt the
american system had been corrupted, the constitution betrayed. In taking
Russia for their ally over against Germany and Italy, America and Britiain
only confirmed in Pound's mind that they no longer deserved his allegiance.


> 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?
>

That his ethical judgment was of a manichean cast.


> I believe the whole notion [of the benefits of rule by a 'moral leader']
> 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?

That is an appropriate question with which to begin one's reading of The
Cantos, a poem containing history.

Regards,
Tim Romano