What follows is a reply to Joe Brennan on the issue of US imperialism, and a
statement of general agreement with his postion.  However, we still seem to
differ on Pound.

Joe Brennan says,

>
>  If one is going to speculate on those who
are critical of US imperialism, then it's probably helpful to choose areas
where US imperialism has held sway.  ergo, it's proper, in my view, to point
to countries of Central America, where US Imperialism has been rampant for
more than 150 years, focusing on european countries is less than helpful,
since US imperialism has had, until recently, a limited impact in these
areas -- unless one wants to consider US participation in WWA as an exercise
in imperialism, a leap I'm reluctant to make.
>

Yes.  I agree with you completely on this.  If I gave you the impression
that I wanted to relativize the issue of imperialism, that was not my
intention.  I had in mind a different point made by another person posting.
Your analysis here is completely in harmony with mine.

When I said,

“There is basically only one type of fascism:  dedication to following the
will of the Supreme Leader ( the Duce, or the Fuhrer).”

You replied,
>
>this definition of fascism is, to say the least, simplistic.  in modern (or
>should I say postmodern?) times, the emphasis on the cult of the leader has
been replaced by the cult of the elites, i.e., the dominance of the global
corporation.  this is the significance of the New World Order with its
emphasis on capitalism, and the creation of international bodies such as the
WTO to enforce the privileged place of >capital in the implementation and
enforcement of >policies that ensure its continued dominance.
>

We agree on this point as well.

>
>One further comment about Pound; he quite accurately saw the harmful
>effects of the concentration of wealth by large companies, banks and
>individuals. what he got wrong, obviously, was who controlled the money --
>he, like many others, blamed it on the Jews, a claim that is as silly then
>as it is now. his embracing of fascism, and in particular the "big boss"
>concept
>
>
We agree here on the central analysis, but perhaps not on the conclusion.
In what sense can Pound be accurate about the concentration of wealth if he
is wrong about the concentration of power?  In other words, how can anyone
decry the possession of huge amounts of economic power by a small number of
bankers without denouncing the appropriation of huge amounts of
socio-political power by a bureaucratic fascist party elite?  The answer in
part lies in the Confucian (or Poundian) belief that a good man can arrogate
all power to himself for the general good.  The ethic of the individual is
elevated above the principle of checks on ruler.

Why does Pound ignore the maxim “All power corrupts; absolute power corrupts
absolutely” as it applies in all fields:  the social, the political and the
economic?

Despite our differences on Pound, I think our our critiques regarding the
essential failures of the current US social system are close to identical.
I am a bit surprised that many people on this list share my views on crucial
social matters, and yet some of these mistake my critique of Pound for a
personal attack on them, or on their views about social and aesthetic
matters.

Regards,

Wei

[  POUND AND CHINA -- new index:

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



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