I think you and I may be talking at cross purposes.  We agree, to a large
degree, on the issue of American culture.    Where we may strongly differ is
on the relationship between Pound and American culture.  Carlo said,

>1) As Joe Brennan has tried to point out to you ad nauseam and as the
>Cantos should clearly indicate, Pound did not ignore American democacy
>as the Jefferson/Adams Cantos indicate.

I would like someone to point out how the Jefferson/Adams Cantos show that
Pound did not ignore democracy.  They express admiration for many aspects of
historical personages Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, but I do not see how
they express any support for any of the ideals of democracy.  Evidence
please?

>As for the "ideals" of said
>democracy, those are better left to campaign slogans and Madison Avenue
>borrowing the epistemology of the idealization of the physical world
>established by the physical sciences and technology.
>
What you imply here about Madison avenue, about the sloganeering of
corrupted politicians, and about the misuse of scientific epistemes is, I
believe, absolutely correct.  I am talking about something else.  Rather
than campaign slogans, I am calling for meaningful literary, poetic, or
philosphical expressions of the ideals of democracy.  What troubles me about
Pound (and many, many other modern and contemporary literary figures) is
that they eschew any expression of belief in democracy as expressed so
eloquently by Livy, Plutarch (in some works, like the lives of the Gracchi),
Locke, Rousseau, Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Franklin, B.F. Bache, Lincoln, the
French revolutionaries, Proudhon, Kropotkin, Chomsky, and countless others.
Too many have despaired of the possibility of democracy; others (like Pound)
firmly rejected it.

>2) Let's address your ever so important question as regards American
>culture. (Incidentally wise choice to change the agenda from political
>history to culture.). In fact there is no connection between American
>culture and Pound. American culture is Disney, Coca Cola and pontoon
>bridges and airstrips by Bechtel.

If you define culture this way, I can understand your point of departure,
and many of your conclusions.  However,  Jefferson, Melville, Twain, Walt
Whitman, (and Pound, in a different way, and to a lesser extent) are parts
of American culture.  Frankly, I see Coca Cola, Disney, and Bechtel
airstrips as the NEGATION of American culture.  If culture is seen as the
sum total of customs, moral principles, beliefs, ideals, religious
practices, and philosophical principles which help to constitute society,
then capitalism, by its nature is destructive of culture.

>Pound didn't arise from this culture
>of corporate kleptocracy that was born manipulating the delusion that
>the US has or ever had ideals. The people who do the manipulating as
>elaborated bu Mills, Bernays, Lippmann etal stand above these cultural
>concerns. They form an elite. They don't read Pound either.
>

Why do you say that Pound did not arise from this culture-- reverting to
your definition of culture---, i.e. the culture of corporate kleptocracy.
The names of the kleptocrats were different (J.P. Morgan, Rothschild,
Carnegie), but wasn't the corporate manipulated ideological superstructure
similar in its basic tenets in Pound's time?
>
>No one is participating in American culture through reading Pound's
>poetry.
>
Apparently a small number are (for better or worse).  Aren't you doing so?
Isn't Pound affecting the way you view reality?  And are you not an integral
part of American culture?
>
>The money just isn't there and when we speak of a Pound industry
>we are largely flattering ourselves as being part of some valuable mode
>of production vis a vis the general culture.

Who precisely is flattering whom?  Who is speaking of a Pound "industry"?  I
am not.  I am merely speaking of the influence which Pound may have on those
who study and read him OR ---and this is more important--- the relationship
between Pound himself and the culture he lived in (and fled).

>Clearly, crystal clearly,
>Pound was against the corporate manipulation of public sensiblity as
>well as the cooption of their labor.

He was, I agree, against the "the corporate manipulation of public
sensibility."  However he was FOR the manipulation of public opinion by a
fascist bureaucracy.  That is measureably worse, in my view, and a very sad
fact about Pound.  In so many respects, and in other circumstances, Pound
may have had the potential to be a one of the truly greatest opponents of
the exploitation of man by man.   As to Pound being against the co-opting of
labor (presumably the labor of the average member of the public), I cannot
say that you are correct without qualification.  He was against the
co-opting of the labor of the working man by the private corporation, but he
WAS NOT against the co-opting of labor by a fascist elite.  Pound strove to
his utmost to promote fascist approaches to the labor problem (via Odon
Por), and medieval Chinese solutions, feudal "land reforms" and "labor
reforms," which would have even made Mussolini pale.

[If you are interested in a detailed analysis of Pound's views on labor, in
relation to the Chinese dimension of his work and relation to fascism, and
his translations of Odon Por, you can visit the site, and read the article
called "Ideograms and Economics"
http://www.geocities.com/weienlin/poundindex.html  ]


>So please don't insist we tar the
>Cantos as an expression of American culture.

I am afraid I must insist.   The Cantos are an expression of American
culture.  They are one expression.  What they have in common with corporate
culture is extremely troubling.  I will try to explain this point briefly.
Noam Chomsky gave a fascinating lecture several years ago called "Madisonian
Democracy."  In this presentation he pointed out that the Bolshevik, the
Fascist, and the Corporate philosophical premises were essentially the same,
despite their facades of mutual antipathy.  Each of these "philosophies"
held the view that an elite group (the politburo; the fascist leader and his
close advisors; or the CEO and his board of directors) should hold absolute
power in their own spheres.  Each outlook holds that the other philosphies
are evil and pernicious.  Each is antithetical to democracy.  [When asked
about the relationship between Corporations and Democracy, Chomksy said the
relationship was analagous to that between the lion and the lamb, or between
metal and acid.  Corporations, because they do not practice democracy, must
work to undermine it, or even destroy it].  Pound's fascism is, from the
broadest cultural perspective, simply one of many possible false reactions
to the defects of capitalism and corporate culture.  The cure proposed by
Pound is worse than the disease (and the disease is pretty damn bad, I think
you will agree).  Thus what Pound has in common with the corporate culture
of America is his belief that a select elite should rule --- thus the social
form of his proposed solution is in its essence the same the social form he
decries:  it is hierarchical, anti-democratic (in the most meaningful sense
of the word), anti-labor, racist, and imperialist.
>
>I should make you go on house buys with me as I buy books
>from the good citizens inhabiting a world that is supposed to consider
>Pound part of its culture. That would cure you of your delusions.
>
Which delusion do you mean ?  I do not have any delusion that the vast
majority of American citizens are striving to seek out and discover the
truths contained in the Chicago Great Books Series, if that is what you are
implying.   I am sure I do have some delusions (Don't we all?).  I applaud
your efforts to destroy the all-to-prevalent delusion that our current
corporate controlled system embodies a genuinely meaningful principle of
democracy. May you continue energetically, with confidence, and self
assurance in that struggle---through whatever means are at your disposal.

Regards,

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