Dear Wei,

Sorry you don't get what I'm saying.  Seems to me that you tangle
yourself up in my individual phrases and can't see the wood for
the trees.  In any case, unlike yourself, I occasionally enjoy
making informal statements on this list and have neither the time
nor patience to enter into prolonged debates.  Glad you liked the
reminder about the piped-in music and regret refusal to fill out
your questionnaire.

==Dan P


At 08:15 AM 8/4/00 GMT, you wrote:
>Daniel Pearlman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
><< There is no question in my mind that Pound was thoroughly elitist
>and had no interest in the common folk.  His hatred of Usury focuses
>on its effects on the arts, not on the little guy's lifestyle.
>I am amused to recall an instance of his total insensitivity to the
>workingman.  Sometime in the 20s he offered the suggestion that
>music be piped in to the factory floor to enable the worker to be
>more productive by reducing the monotony of his job.  (He was his
>own sort of Taylorite!)>>
>
>An interesting anecdote.  I recall reading that suggestion too.  Thank you
>for reminding us of this.
>
><<By the way, I do not denigrate Pound for being unconcerned with the
>mass of humanity.  >>
>
>"Being unconcerned with the mass of humanity" (?)  In the previous paragraph
>you said, "total insensitivity to the workingman."  Which do you really
>think properly characterizes Pound's view?
>
>The reason I ask is to clarify this point, because I believe reasonable
>disagreement can occur on this issue.  When I think of "unconcerned," I
>think of James Joyce, who was essentially apolitical and totally devoted to
>his craft and to aesthetic pursuits.  Such people are unconcerned, but not
>hostile toward the working man.  Pound it seems to me WAS concerned about
>the mass of humanity.  He was concerned that they be put in their proper
>place, that they be subjected to the proper discipline.  He thought the
>truth should be kept from them, or given to them by certain people ("Freedom
>of the Speech for those qualified to exercise it") and that they should be
>dazzled by ritual ("Mass should be in Latin or in Chinese, or any language
>the Masses cannot understand").  He applauded the ceremony of the rural
>Italian women submitting to having their labors "blessed" by ordained
>priests, though he rejected such priestly ceremonies for himself.
>
>So I would say, that in one sense he was "unconcerned with the mass of
>humanity", in the sense you mean.  But in another sense he was concerned
>about their fate, and about their subjection under the fascist yoke,
>especially in Europe, and in China.  I would say that he was "insensitive to
>the worker" in the sense you mean.  But he was very "sensitive" to the fact
>that the worker could rebel, and that fascist order was needed to prevent
>the advent of widespread democracy. Perhaps this is what he meant when he
>said, "Total democracy was bilge."  Pound might have meant merely that
>democracy needed to be limited.  I am sure some may wish to argue that.  But
>Pound's political commitments lead me to believe that limited democracy
>means "fascism" , or it means "aristo-democracy" in the style of Adams.
>This essentially signifies the silencing of all independent presses, the
>move toward aristocracy and AWAY from any meaningful democracy, and toward
>the establishment of an executive, a monarchy, or a DUCE, who will arrogate
>all power to himself.
>
>
><<His stance is perhaps a needed corrective to
>today's PC downgrade of all elites in favor of the always-oppressed
>little guy of every stripe and color.>>
>
>This is puzzling to me.  How can "insensitivity" or a "lack of concern" be a
>corrective?  Where is there an alleged "PC downgrade of all elites"?  What
>elites are being downgraded?  Are there any elites who deserve their elite
>status, that are in danger of being deprived of that status?  I wonder if
>you could be specific.
>
>Please explain the phrase "in favor of the always-oppressed little guy of
>every stripe and color."  You believe that there are "always-oppressed
>little guys" who are undeserving of restitution or justice.  Who are these
>people of "every stripe and color"?  Are they oppressed single mothers who
>being compelled to work two or three jobs, which do not provide a livable
>wage?  Are they workers who are losing health insurance, or being made to
>work longer hours for less pay measured in real wages, than the work force
>as a whole did in 1979?  Are they the employees who receive one dollar for
>every two hundred dollars received by the average CEO in a large company
>(while in 1980 the ration was 1:150, and in 1960 the ratio was 1: 14).   Are
>these "always oppressed" people the children living in poverty, who now
>constitute one in five of all children born in the US?
>
>I think you need to say who these "little guys" are.
>
><<(But of course, today's humane
>democratism is itself partly a reaction to Modernism's insensitivities.)>>
>
>Which "humane democritism" are you referring to?  The new welfare policy?
>The new policy that allows health insurance companies to dump millions of
>subscribers to enhance the bottom line?  The new trade policy that allows
>factory owners to fire all their workers and move to Mexico to pay workers
>under a dollar an hour, or to China where they can pay as low as three cents
>per hour?  Or is it the new banking policy which guts the anti-trust laws
>and makes it possible for banks, brokerage firms, and insurance firms to
>merge, guaranteeing higher prices for all services and oligopolistic
>collusion of a kind not seen since the 1920's?
>
>Perhaps it is the new landscape on which our democratic elections are
>fought.  Is it this landscape which you would say is rife with "humane
>democratism", an arena in which candidates are compelled to raise
>unprecendented amounts of money, and the vested corporate interests have
>greater power than ever in calling the tune?  Is this the system which
>inordinately favors the "little guy" (whose campaign contributions mean
>virtually nothing)?
>
>
><<It is true that EP later became interested in certain minority cultures,
>but only for their symbolically interesting rituals and myths.>>
>
>We agreed on this last point completely.  We can cite in this connection the
>Nakhi (or Naxi) of southeast China.
>
>Regards,
>
>Wei
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
>
HOME:
Dan Pearlman
102 Blackstone Blvd. #5
Providence, RI 02906
Tel.: 401 453-3027
email: [log in to unmask]
Fax: (253) 681-8518
http://www.uri.edu/artsci/english/clf/

OFFICE
Department of English
University of Rhode Island
Kingston, RI 02881
Tel.: 401 874-4659