>he doesn't seem willing or
>able to think of Fascism as an historical phenomenon . . .

On what basis would you say that I do not "think of fascism as an historical
phenomenon?"  My analysis is premised on the notion that both fascism and
Confucianism are fully historical phenonemena, devoid of any "ahistorical
essense," as you call it.  That is to say they are rooted in contingencies,
and in the development of social structures which are MISTAKEN BY POUND as
historical evidence of transcendent truth.  Pound claims that Confucianism
provides us with a "the universal social coordinate",  but his argument
takes the form of a tautology.  Confucianism is sound, because history has
proven it has worked.  History has proven it has worked because we know
(analytically) that Confucianism is sound.  Pound uses the same logic for
fascism.  Fascism is right because it is formulated by Mussolini (the voice
of "right reason").  Mussolini is right because he applies the fascist
principle (which is merely, in Pound's view, the latest version of
Confucianism, discovered by Mussolini independently, but identical in its
essence with Confucian thought).  Most of what I have written about on this
subject is an attempt to show the reader of Pound, that the poet's
assumptions, especially about the universal applicability of Confucianism
and fascism, is based on historical omission, the precise deliberate effort
by POUND HIMSELF, to ignore fascism's roots in contingent historical
circumstances, and to EVADE, any evidence which would show that either
Fascism or Confucianism are doctrines which have been used to create greater
inequality, to stifle human creativity and democracy, to subject humans to
greater exploitations, and to authoritarian oppression.


>not as some sort
>of ahistorical essence, but as a political and cultural formation that
>emerged at a specific moment in history, in response to the
>circumstances of that moment. Thus I might be interested in the ways in
>which Chiang Kai-Shek's Nationalism--which was, I take it, genuinely a
>form for Fascism--may have used the Confucian tradition to legitimate
>itself, just as Mussolini's Fascism appealed for legitimation to the
>Roman imperium. (Did this happen? I don't know Chinese and know little
>Chinese history, so I can't say. But I'm curious.)

Thank you for the question, which is, I think very pertinent to an
understanding of Pound, of Confucianism in China, and of fascism as it has
been experienced in the East.

  The great irony in Pound studies, and in Pound's life, (as far as China is
concerned) is that for the vast majority of Chinese intellectuals, Confucius
was a dead letter after 1911, the year of the Republican revolution, and of
the definitive end of dynastic rule.  Yet Pound becomes More and MORE
Confucian as Confucius becomes LESS and Less important in China.  Sun
Yatsen, in leading the new Republic did not make a single reference to
Confucius in his public speeches.  He and the Nationalists purged Confucius
from the curriculum.  Pound himself expressed anger towards the
nationalists, and toward Chiang Kaishek for "letting Confucius out of the
schools".  Pound supported the Chinese collaborator with the Japanese (Wang)
for being the sort of "gentleman" on "the right side of the line" who would
put Confucius back in the academy.

During the years leading up to the WWII, there arose the May student
movements, and the "Down with the Confucius Shop" movement, which
essentially destroyed Confucianism as a dogma (doing for Confucianism,
ultimately what the French revolution did for Catholicism in France, only
more so).  And if that did not bury Confucius forever on the mainland, then
the Cultural Revolution did.  Since that time, Confucius has been viewed by
most Chinese in the way in which the new text critics (late Qing dynasty,
about  1840-1911) wanted Confucius to be viewed: as one of many zhuzi
(ordinary philosophers) living during the Spring and Autumn period.

The rootedness of Confucianism, and of Pound's view of Confucius IN SPECIFIC
HISTORICAL CIRCUMSTANCES is explored here:

http://www.geocities.com/weienlin.poundindex.html

in the essay, the Cantos Collapse.

>However, Wei's
>tendency to treat Confucianism as in effect the "same thing" as Fascism
>seems to me as dogmatic and unilluminating as Pound's conflation of
>Jefferson and Mussolini.
>


If you think Fascism and Confucianism are essentially different in any
significant way, you might want to point to some special feature.  Of course
they are not precisely identical (except perhaps in Pound's mind).  They are
much more similar than "Jefferson and Mussolini".  (For those who want a
list of the similarities briefly:  fascism and Confucianism are both close
to being secular philosophies which allow religion to have a significant
role in maintaining social control; they both elevate the belief in the
state, and the moral obligation to serve the state, to the status of prime
imperative; they both teach and enforce obedience to a clearly defined
hierarchy, and to ONE MAN (never a woman), who has supreme power; they both
reject the view that law should restrict the leader (on the contrary, the
ruler is a law unto himself, whose actions are the model of virtue, never to
be subjected to standards defined by an inferior).  They both oppose the
pursuit of personal profit, as something tawdry and opposed to the state
interest.  Both also reject any kind of egalitarian philosophy, or
redistribution (whether based on Taoist principles in the East; or
anarcho-syndicalist, communist, or Christian socialist doctrines in the
West). Both look to antiquity for authentification (Fascim looked to
Imperial Rome; Confucianism to the Zhou dynasty).  The list goes on.  But
that will do as a brief sketch.  Of course fascism differs from
Confucianism, perhaps in the same way that fascism differs from Roman
Imperial ideology (and in several other less significant ways, with have to
do with the surface structure of culture, and not its deep structure).

While it may be correct to say that only one out of one hundred readers of
Pound have read the China Cantos, or have studied Rock Drill, paying
attention to the Chinese historical material in relation to Pound's other
concerns, this in no way ( I feel )invalidates my approach.  It was Pound
HIMSELF who said he thought his "translations" of Confucian texts into
English was his most important work.  Pound, when asked what he believed
said on numerous occasions, "Read Confucius."  Even after world war two was
over, Pound said that Hitler and Mussolini were in error only insofar as
they did not follow Confucius more closely.  (A sentence subject to
interpretation, but indicative that Pound thought Confucianism was the BASIS
of his method of making moral valuations, and that fascism was a
contingency, which did not succeed).   One may study Pound, and not interest
oneself in his use of Chinese materials.  But I think Pound himself would
say that one is neglecting to look at one of the most significant dimensions
of his thought if one does not interest himself in Confucius.  Recall that
when asked to compose a sort of universal american curriculum, Confucius and
the Four Books of Confucianism were at the top of the list.  Pound said in
the Guide to Kulchur that all other books on the list (including the US
Constitution) were merely "amenties" and that all first principles were to
be found in Confucius.

So I would argue that studying Confucius, and Pound's reaction to Confucius
is even more important than studying Pound's fascism, if one really wants to
get at the essence of what Pound himself believed he was saying.

Regards,

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